A WiseMan saying....."If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
: RB Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:37:57
A WiseMan saying....."If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
And if buildings were living beings, they would probably have eaten the woodpeckers. But alas....
https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871 (https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871)
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016
Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being
03 | Bible Creation
The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
: Victor08 Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 16:17:16
https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871 (https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871)
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016
Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being
03 | Bible Creation
The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
Looks like they missed
Modern Evolution MythStories of Coming Into Being
Fallen humanity gropes around within the box of their microscopic planet, occupying an even smaller spec of time in eternity, and presumes to figure out their origins through evolutionary progressive mutation. Creating and redefining evidence as their theory evolves according to the dictates of their misguided efforts to uphold the same against all incriminating evidence, or serious lack of supporting evidence.
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 17:25:12
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Not everything in creationism twists to shed doubt on God's word. There are some forms of creationism that are consistent with God's word. And most creationists are as sincere and devout in their love of God as any other Christian.
: AVZ Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 20:56:15Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Amen my brother~From the beginning the Biblical record has been very clear that God creating the worlds, and He set the time keepers in motion in the heavens to implement its days. But lately, the real nature of the origin of the universe has been the subject of much discussion and debate by
professing Christians. The sad fact is, there are many professing Christians who have swallowed
the theory (and it's ONLY a theory) of evolution hook, line and sinker. And more than a few doubting Theologians have consequently
attempted to incorporate man's humanistic reasoning and rationalizations into Christianity~ (I heard Jimmy Swaggart recently do this with his
Gap theory in Genesis one~he did struggle in trying to present it) Some with their modern day theories of Theistic Evolution, they preach subjections like, "God created the world through evolution." But when considered carefully, Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms.
Because it effectively makes all of God's word untrustworthy and suspect. For if one part of it is subject to manipulation and private opinion,
then all of it is subject to this form of interpretation. We reject anyone's teaching that makes God's word untrustworthy and suspect. Unfortunately, what we have in this instance is an attempt by those who have their faith in the words of men,
to try and have the best of both worlds. In other words, they want to profess some belief in God, and yet they want to also hold to what man has declared was the creation process. Mixing hot with cold, they have come up with a lukewarm solution that may be palatable for them,
but is decidedly unpalatable to God. The fact is, you cannot serve two masters.
The number one rule of sound hermeneutics is that when man's word blatantly contradicts God's word, then God's word must be the final arbiter of truth.
And that rule stands no matter how cleverly the contradictions are cloaked or disguised. Indeed, how could there be the evolution of species when scripture tells us very clearly that the world, and all that was therein, was "created" in six days? And yes, I'm well aware of the
half baked theories by compromising Theologians that the six days of creation weren't literal days, but these theories (like the men who cook them up), are in direct contradiction to all that the word of God plainly declares. And not contradicting something that God said implicitly, but contradicting what God has said explicitly and in very plain rational grammatical context. This attempt by some to justify the days of scripture to be understood outside of what is the common use of language in the Bible completely ignores the additional facts and qualifications that God has given. For the Bible not only says that the heavens and earth and everything therein was created in six days, He says that the seventh day makes up the Sabbath week. Indeed, this is where man's seven day week has come from.
Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding.
From what God has inspired written, we would have to be deliberately trying "not" to receive the very plain language, in order to understand it as anything but six literal days. So I must wonder about people trying to mix biblical Christianity with evolution, it's like trying to mix grace with works, they are opposite in their meaning.
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
And IT IS, but much more so to God who has given to us his very own testimony concerning these things, which every believer receives by faith,
without trying to appease the skeptics and men who "think" they are wise above the scriptures!
Nothing in evolution denies God's word. How could it? He made evolution. Nor does anything in evolutionary theory say anything contrary to God's word.
Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding.
The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged. This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.
However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it. Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other. That does not serve God.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 08:18:10
The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged. This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.
It also suggests the even the phrase ,
"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.
However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it. Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other. That does not serve God.
AMEN to that. And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.
I don't care to say who starts these things. I only wish they would stop.
(Edit)
By that, I don't mean that it's wrong to discuss the issue. Iron sharpens iron. What I mean is that it's wrong to suggest that those who have a different opinion than we do, are somehow "calling God a liar", or are not real Christians. Christians have all sorts of opinions on the way He created living things in their diversity, and none of those opinions separate any of us from God.
: RB Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:37:57
A WiseMan saying....."If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
[/Wow, I LOVE that quote!!!! ::clappingoverhead::font]
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all.
Let God be God, and have it His way.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 17, 2017 - 12:25:42I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our
only source for truth!
Hebrews 11:3~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.
Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent.
He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man,
Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...
science SO-CALLED! By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God.
Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally
because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it
may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution,
this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes,
by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man
in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Answer: Jesus Christ.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.
I am a Christian
So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.
and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-observable-fact/ (http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-observable-fact/)
Is Evolution an Observable Fact?
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation
"Evolution is fact!" is one of the most popular evolutionary assertions made by evolutionists, ranging from those at the National Center for Science Education to those working for PBS.1, 2 Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.
Darwin's ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species. He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures "after their kind." Darwin also claimed that each species' original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God. Finally, Darwin's timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.
So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim? By assuming that all change is evolutionary change. Why is this assumption wrong? Because the Bible permits biological change to a certain degree and, therefore, not all change is evolutionary change.
Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing "kinds" on board the Ark, He required that "male and female" of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.3
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began this article and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.
Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin's finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.
The evidence for the biblical model is so strong that even the world's most famous living evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, must concede this point. "We can't see evolution happening because we don't live long enough," he said in a 2009 interview.4 In other words, evolution is unobservable.
Wow. Not only is the "Evolution is fact!" claim false, but the complete opposite is true. Furthermore, since evolution is not observable, evolution isn't even science! Yet, somehow in spite of this, Dawkins still concludes, "Evolution is a fact."4 In light of what we've just discussed and what he himself admitted, we know he reached his conclusion in spite of the evidence—not because of it.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=674 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=674)
Someone might object, however, that the quotations I have employed (from evolutionists such as Dobzhansky, Clark, and others) to document the nonverifiability of evolution were written during the 1950s and 1960s. Much scientific research on evolution has occurred in the decades that followed, and thus it might be considered unfair to rely on such "dated" critiques of a concept like evolution that changes so rapidly and that has been studied so intently.
My response to such an objection would be to point out that I used the quotations from the 1950s and 1960s intentionally, in order to document that the situation over the past four decades has not improved. By the 1970s, for example, little had changed. At the height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grassé was considered by many to be France's greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky wrote of him: "Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic" (1975, 29:376). In 1977, Grassé wrote in The Evolution of Living Organisms:
Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.
Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved (pp. 8,202, emp. added).
Three years later, in 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life's origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that "to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?" After dismissing any sort of "directed evolution," Lipson concluded: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation." Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: "I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (31:138, emp. in orig.).
Just a little over a year later, on November 5, 1981, the late Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world's foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been "kicking around" non-evolutionary, or "anti-evolutionary," ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:
One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).
Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence." He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there "was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.' " He then remarked, "It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
Dr. Patterson went on to say: "Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way." But more important, he termed evolution an "anti-theory" that produced "anti-knowledge." He also suggested that "the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil," and that evolution theory is "a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none." To use Patterson's wording, "I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge" (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).
Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as "anti-evolutionary," which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only "anti-knowledge."
Colin Patterson was not the only one expressing such views, however. Over the past two decades, distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. The same year that Dr. Patterson traveled to America to speak, Dr. Hoyle wrote:
I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The "others" are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).
In fact, Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.
The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).
And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy:
At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).
Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who is a professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at the University College, Cardiff, Wales) went even further. Using probability figures applied to cosmic time (not just geologic time here on the Earth), their conclusion was:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe suggested, however, that this "higher intelligence" did not necessarily have to be, as far as they were concerned, what most people would call "God," but simply a being with an intelligence "to the limit of God." They, personally, opted for "directed panspermia," a view which suggests that life was "planted" on the Earth via genetic material that originated from a "higher intelligence" somewhere in the Universe. But just one year later, in 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (20:16, emp. added).
Three years after that, in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Denton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:
In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.
The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.
The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp. 16,327,353, emp. in orig.).
In 1987, two years after Denton's book was published, Swedish biologist Søren Løvtrup wrote in an even stronger vein:
After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think the answer is that current evolutionists follow Darwin's example—they refuse to accept falsifying evidence (p. 352, emp. added).
In his 1988 book, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe, Australian physicist Paul Davies wrote: "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming" (p. 203, emp. added). That same year, evolutionary physicist George Greenstein wrote:
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (1988, p. 27).
In 1992, Arno Penzias (who fourteen years earlier had shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics with Robert W. Wilson for their discovery of the so-called "background radiation" left over from the Big Bang) declared:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan [p. 83, parenthetical comment in orig.].
In his 1994 book, The Physics of Immortality, Frank Tipler (who coauthored with John D. Barrow the massive 1986 volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) wrote:
When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (Preface).
One year later, NASA astronomer John O'Keefe admitted:
We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (1995, p. 200).
Then, in 1998, evolutionist Michael Denton shocked everyone with his new book, Nature's Destiny, when he admitted:
Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes....
Although this is obviously a book with many theological implications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for design; however, as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the spirit and tradition of William Paley's Natural Theology (pp. xvii-xviii,xi-xii, emp. in orig.).
Such quotations could be multiplied almost endlessly. Even a cursory examination shows that there is much more that is "unknown" than "known" in the evolutionary scenario.
Is Evolution an Observable Fact?
Yep. Even speciation has been directly observes. Most creationists admit the evolution of new species. Many even acknowledge the evolution of higher taxa.
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
Nathaniel has argued that there are no transitional fossils. Even honest creationists freely admit that there are many of them. Would you like me to show you? Now Doctor Jeanson is a cell biologist, and was apparently shocked when paleontologists showed him numerous examples of such transitionals. But later, he went right back to claiming otherwise. So that's extremely damaging to his credibility.
Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.
Undergraduates demonstrate it every year. Let's look at that claim. Show me which of Darwin's five points have not been demonstrated to happen in nature.
Darwin's ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species.
Scripture does not say how God produced the variety of life we see. It merely says the earth brought forth life.
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures "after their kind."
If God had said how He did it, then you might have a point. But of course, He didn't.
Darwin also claimed that each species' original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God.
God says He created the Earth, and then the Earth brought forth life. Why should it bother anyone that He used nature to produce life?
Finally, Darwin's timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.
That is a modern belief, not consistent with scripture. In fact, until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism, most creationists were old Earth creationists. It was, for example, the form of creationism presented at the Scopes trial.
So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim?
Direct observation.
By assuming that all change is evolutionary change.
No, you've been misled about that. It's why Darwinism was confirmed, and Lamarckism was refuted.
Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing "kinds" on board the Ark, He required that "male and female" of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.
No. That's a misunderstanding. For example, the Institute for Creation Research endorses the work of John Woodmorappe, who argues that "kind" is at the level of family. But other creationists have other ideas. Which taxon do you think defines "kind", and what is your evidence for that?
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae,
So it's family? But then that would mean humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are the same "kind." You sure that's right?
: Amo Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 08:41:33
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?
http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html (http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html)
A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander's Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat
B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon's Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose
C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet
D
Dhole
Diardi's Clouded Leopard
Dingo
E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat
F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa
G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy's Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier's Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf
H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk
I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose
J
Jackson's Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat
K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod
L
Least Weasel
Leighton's Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel
M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller's Mongoose
Mountain Coati
N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon
O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla
P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas' Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues's Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon
R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat
S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous's Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger
T
Tayra
Tiger
W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine
Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin
: Victor08 Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 18:09:23
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?
You should know Victor, carnivores didn't exist prior to the flood, T-Rex's ate leaves ::smile::
Never really heard a good explanation as to how parasites survived though ::pondering::
[size=78%] [/size]
Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.
Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.
How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?
I'm still here (:-
: Victor08 Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 21:35:58Where did Noah keep his bees? In the ark hives.
Are you mocking God Victor? What difference does it make how and where each animal that came unto Noah lived? If I were you, I would not be overly concerned about what is not revealed to us, but WHAT IS! There were bees for sure that went unto Noah under God's guidance, JUST AS ALL ANIMALS came unto Adam so he could name them. John Calvin wrote:
Moses now explains,—what had before been doubtful,—in which manner the animals were gathered together into the ark, and says that they came of their own accord. If this should seem to any one absurd, let him recall to mind what was said before, that in the beginning every kind of animals presented themselves to Adam, that he might give them names. And, truly, we dread the sight of wild beasts from no other cause than this, that seeing we have shaken off the yoke of God, we have lost that authority over them with which Adam was endued. Now, it was a kind of restoration of the former state of things when God brought to Noah those animals which he intended should be preserved through Noah's labor and service. For Noah retained the untamed animals in his ark, in the very same way in which hens and geese are preserved in a coop. And it is not superfluously added, that the animals themselves came, as God had instructed Noah; for it shows that the blessing of God rested on the obedience of Noah, so that his labor should not be in vain. It was impossible, humanly speaking, that in a moment such an assemblage of all animals should take place; but because Noah, simply trusting the event with God, executed what was enjoined upon him; God, in return, gave power to his own precept, that it might not be without effect. Properly speaking, this was a promise of God annexed to his commands. And, therefore, we must conclude, that the faith of Noah availed more, than all snares and nets, for the capture of animals; and that, by the very same gate, lions, and wolves, and tigers, meekly entered, with oxen, and with lambs, into the ark. And this is the only method by which we may overcome all difficulties;
And also to believe that God brought to him the best of the best,~ faith believes this, why should we believe anything less than this? So, concerning your article.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark........Parasites and diseases.
I will only say this, for the article does not deserve more than what I'm going to say. With God nothing is imposssible~which animals God CAUSED to go unto Noah, you can believe that they were FREE OF DISEASES~God's does often work totally against what seemly is an impossibility to make it work for his own glory and honor. The list is LONG in the scriptures~Consider:
Daniel 1:5-16~"And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse."
ALL LAWS of nature would tell us that ANY KING'S daily provision would be a FAR superior diet to make one's skin fairer, hair and their health overall superior to those who were given pulse and water~and NO ONE would ever believe a poor man's diet of pulse and water one would GAIN weight and one's countenances
much fairer than those who had a king's daily provision, the best money could buy...now would they?
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood.
Sir, the ONLY unfortunate souls where those deluded souls OUTSIDE of the ark, and those who believe such nonsense, to even think that such SMALL THINGS God did not have PERFECT control of ALL ANIMALS that he sent to Noah to receive into the ark! It is so amazing that every deluded evolutionist looks for holes in our FORTRESS OF FAITH....but there are none to be found!
: Victor08 Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 18:09:23
: Amo Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 08:41:33
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?
http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html (http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html)
A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander's Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat
B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon's Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose
C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet
D
Dhole
Diardi's Clouded Leopard
Dingo
E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat
F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa
G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy's Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier's Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf
H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk
I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose
J
Jackson's Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat
K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod
L
Least Weasel
Leighton's Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel
M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller's Mongoose
Mountain Coati
N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon
O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla
P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas' Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues's Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon
R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat
S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous's Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger
T
Tayra
Tiger
W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine
Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin
Those details are not provided by scripture. If such extensive details were provided in scripture concerning all that is addressed by them, one would spend an entire life just trying to finish reading the Bible. Your questions reveal the real nature of your problem with the Bible, your lack of faith in God's word and therefore God Himself. Instead of easily identifying simple answers to your created or warmly welcomed dilemmas according to true faith in scriptures, you opt to cast doubt upon the accuracy of the word of God. You beleive yourself and other antagonists, to be of to superior intellect to accept that there is a being who could easily solve what would appear to be problems from your fallen human perspective. This you do, even though you believe humans are just more highly evolved apes without hair, rather than creatures created in the image of God, as the scriptures plainly testify.
Your presumed insurmountable obstacles are no problem whatsoever for God, or the mentally, physically, and intellectually superior human beings that existed before the flood. Your lack of faith in God's word has you seeing everything backwards. It causes you to doubt God's abilities, and view humanity as less capable and intelligent as apes the further back towards creation one goes, instead of
more intelligent and capable as beings closer to the image of God nearer creation as scripture testifies. Thinking yourself wise, you have become a fool, placing the intellect and powers of observation of fallen humanity above the word of God. You worship the created, in place of the Creator.
The building and preparation of the ark was a huge undertaking which spanned 120 years. The builders were mentally, physically, and intellectually superior to humanity of today, not inferior ape like creatures. They lived up to nine hundred years, enabling the same people to start and finish the job with no interruption or need to change hands. They were directed by God Himself, and we do not know all the details regarding the same, He may have been more involved than we know from the short account recorded. Apart from this of course, God had, has, and will always continue to have complete control over all aspects of His creations. He is in control of nature, not the other way around. Nor is He in any way shape or form limited by it as we are. He brought the animals of His own choosing to the ark, and if He so desired all carnivores would have eaten straw during the deluge, and done just fine in doing so. Nevertheless, we do not know those details. Your lack of faith, causes your own short sightedness and inability to see outside of the box of fallen human limitations you impose upon yourself and others. You are a scoffer, who pretends to worship the same God of scripture that I and others do, while continually exalting the doubts and or supposed superior intellect of fallen humanity above the written word of God.
Jn 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him,
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? Is He "the way,
the truth, and the Life, or not? Why do you reject the testimony of the Father and the Son, in favor of the testimony of fallen humanity? Is it not because of your lack of faith?
Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.You are specifically addressed in scripture as one who lacks the faith necessary to please God. You may profess whatever you wish, but you fool yourself if you think you may exalt the observations of fallen and deprived humanity above the word of God, and still retain God's favor. God's favor toward humanity has been revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How long that favor will last is now in our hands, concerning how we will handle the word of God in relation to Him, and our fallen brothers and sisters. We will choose God's word and worship Him in doing so, or we will choose our own words and worship ourselves in doing so. This is where it all started. God said one thing, Satan said another. Fallen humanity chose to believe what Satan said above what God said, and here we are. Choose you this day whom you will serve.
: Victor08 Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 21:35:58
Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.
Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.
How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?
More of the same lack of faith and short sightedness of God according to the same.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact. A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.
Evolution may be to you an observed fact, and perhaps you are convinced by some theory that tries to explain it. But that really does not make it a reality.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are. And besides, better theories remain to be theories which, by such statement suggest theories to have a never ending replacement by a better one.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
I am a Christian
So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.
Perhaps. But that neither make evolution a reality. I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.
Nothing like that. God created man, and that in His image, and all living things and creatures according to their kind, not some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into all sorts of living things and creatures, and even into man who evolved to be in His image, and that even perhaps, by chance.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Answer: Jesus Christ.
Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.
I don't quite see what you are saying here.
Anyway, don't you agree with my answer?
"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.
: notreligus Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 13:14:13
"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.
Never heard that before. ???
Never heard that before. ???
Because it's completely false. Astonishing that anyone would even suggest that is what Christians think, evolutionists or not.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
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.
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.
I just showed you the difference. Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts. There are theories that explain them.
A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Almost. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena. Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories.
To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.
Which is why so many people get confused about it. "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.
Evolution may be to you an observed fact,
It's been repeatedly observed. Can't get more real than that.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Barbarian responds:
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.
Yep. You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc. Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game. That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
Bingo.
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian. So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.
But that neither make evolution a reality.
God made it a reality. We're just learning about it.
I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too? Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS
Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.
Barbarian observes:
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.
Now, some evolutionist may say: What is your proof of God?
Barbarian chuckles:
Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.
I don't quite see what you are saying here.
I know. It's why you keep going in circles. Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 17:51:24
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
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.
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.
I just showed you the difference. Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts. There are theories that explain them.
A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Almost. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena. Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories.
To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.
Which is why so many people get confused about it. "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.
Evolution may be to you an observed fact,
It's been repeatedly observed. Can't get more real than that.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Barbarian responds:
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.
Yep. You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc. Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game. That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
Bingo.
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian. So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.
But that neither make evolution a reality.
God made it a reality. We're just learning about it.
I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too? Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS
Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.
Barbarian observes:
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.
Now, some evolutionist may say: What is your proof of God?
Barbarian chuckles:
Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.
I don't quite see what you are saying here.
I know. It's why you keep going in circles. Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
You said
that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that
Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
You said
"Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.
Of course. How could His creation be inconsistent with His word? I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
Yes. The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages. It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds. Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;
Yes. But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body. So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance. God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.
You said that God uses nature to produce living things.
More specifically, God says that. He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things. He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.
No. Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely. Darwin, in
The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.
Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.
No. The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.
Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus? Why would it matter? I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.
Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
Why would that bother you? If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God? I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.
If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.
Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth? God says otherwise in Genesis. We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.
Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
See above. He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
A child could see it. But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.
You said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?
No. We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world. It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles. God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world. He does miracles when he wants to teach us something. The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.
That is supernatural, right?
Of course. God does most things in this world by natural means. It's why He made nature. But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.
This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?
You're catching on.
If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again. Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.
I posted:
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
You said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Your response:
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 23, 2017 - 08:47:20
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.
Of course. How could His creation be inconsistent with His word? I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
Yes. The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages. It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds. Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.
3. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;
Yes. But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body. So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance. God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.
You said that God uses nature to produce living things.
More specifically, God says that. He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things. He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.
No. Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.
Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.
No. The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.
Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus? Why would it matter? I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.
Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
Why would that bother you? If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God? I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.
If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.
Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth? God says otherwise in Genesis. We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.
Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
See above. He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
A child could see it. But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.
You said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?
No. We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world. It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles. God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world. He does miracles when he wants to teach us something. The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.
That is supernatural, right?
Of course. God does most things in this world by natural means. It's why He made nature. But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.
This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?
You're catching on.
If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again. Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.
Barbarian:
Yes. The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages. It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds. Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.
Michael:
What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?
Barbarian:
More specifically, God says that. He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things. He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.
Michael:
Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?
The earth brought forth living things. That does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production of the grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind.
When God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." That does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of the birds.
Barbarian:
Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.
Michael:
At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating. And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.
And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then, but is a theory that tries to explain how already existing living things change over time and evolve into or become something that they originally were not.
And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?
Barbarian:
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus? Why would it matter? I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.
Michael:
So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus. That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?
What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures and is what it teaches. There is no scriptures that even hints that God created like so.
Barbarian:
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth? God says otherwise in Genesis. We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
A child could see it. But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.
Michael:
I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life. And that only after God have formed it, that God breathed into it the breath of life. It was only then that man became a living being, that is, with life.
Barbarian:
No. We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world. It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Michael:
Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.
I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness. But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it and explain how things came to be, coming up with theories as the Big Bang and evolution of life. Over the years, men came to think that by doing so, there will come a time that the human will someday know all truth and explain all things, and perhaps believe that man can do even what is impossible to do today, leading to ideas such as going to and living in Mars, teleportation, among others. Perhaps an excuse in doing this is saying that this is all for the good of humanity and for the glory of God, even while the obvious driving force really is for the survival of the human life and the pride and pleasures of man.
Barbarian:
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles. God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world. He does miracles when he wants to teach us something. The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.
Michael:
Of course God do miracles for His own purpose. And this making water into wine is one such miracle. And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.
Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles, that science has an explanation or theory concerning it - the Big Bang and Evolution.
Barbarian:
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.
Michael:
But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things. And if they can see them, they can make observations of them, can't they? And because they can see and make observations, some have come up with the theory of the Big Band and the theory of evolution.
See my comments regarding Romans 1:20 above.
Barbarian observes:
Yes. The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages. It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds. Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.
What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?
I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, that I didn't. God didn't give us the details. I'm merely showing you that Genesis is consistent with evolution.
Barbarian observes:
More specifically, God says that. He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things. He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.
Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?
Gen. 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
The earth brought forth living things.
Yep. Nature. That's how God created life. Using already-created things.
Barbarian explains that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life:
Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.
At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating.
Even you admit that much. Why not trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it?
And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.
You're getting it, now.
And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then
Not about the creation of life. But certainly about the creation of life's diversity.
And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?
Since there were human populations before our particular kind, using fire, making art and tools, and so on, it seems inescapable it was one of them. But which was the first to be given an immortal soul, and gaining a sense of good and evil, we do not know. Nor do we need to know. Only know that it was done by God and that makes all the difference.
Barbarian asks:
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus? Why would it matter? I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.
So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus.
Or some other population of humans. Why does it matter to you?
That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?
H. erectus, probably. But we don't know for sure. Obviously, it was a population that preceded our own.
What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures
Consistent
with scripture. As you see, it is.
and is what it teaches.
You know that's not what I said.
Barbarian asks:
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth? God says otherwise in Genesis. We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
A child could see it. But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.
I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life.
That is not what Genesis says. It doesn't say that man was without life until God gave him a living spirit.
Barbarian observes:
No. We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world. It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.
If you'll accept that much, why not accept it all?
I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness.
That's what I just told you. I don't know how to make it any simpler.
But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it
We can learn efficient causes with science. Final causes are forever beyond the reach of science. Would you like to learn why?
Barbarian, regarding miracles:
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles. God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world. He does miracles when he wants to teach us something. The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.
And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.
That's not the purpose of science.
Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles,
As St. Augustine pointed out, we are in awe of someone turning water to wine, while we take nature for granted. Nature is a much larger miracle. Not the least so, because God created it so as to be understandable and accessible to man.
Barbarian suggests:
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.
But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things.
You're still confusing science with faith. Two different ways of knowing. Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.
Barbarian,
I am sorry, but I find the way you respond to my post difficult to follow and so find it difficult to get what you mean. That is why you will see that I get to try different ways to compose my replies. And so I try yet another way here. But I'll have to gather first all that I think is what you have said so far.
1. That you are a scientist and a Christian.
2. That evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.
3. That evolution is not about the creation of life.
4. That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
5. That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
6. That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
7. That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.
8. That science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
9. That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life until God gave him a living spirit.
On #2, 3: That evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. That evolution is not about the creation of life.
Michael:
Noted and well taken.
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
Michael:
I could not agree to this. For scriptures say when God created "God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD" and say "God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND"; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.", and say "God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is. But I and I'd say, with the common man who does not observe what you scientist observe, have no reason to say that evolution is a fact. What we have is the word of God in scriptures. And these scriptures does not tell us that God, created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
On #6: That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
Michael:
I don't see it to be.
On #7: That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.
On #8: That science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
Michael: Noted and well taken.
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
Michael:
Gen. 27 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Clearly, God first formed man of the dust of the ground. Then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The result, man became a living being.
Before God breathed into the nostrils of man which God had formed of the dust of the ground, is the man without life or already with life? The answer is: without life.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
Things like evolution and gravity are natural phenomena. There are theories that explain them. Theories are hypotheses that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time,
Probably so. Evolutionary theory has been confirmed in many ways by many independent sources of evidence; it's very unlikely that it will be completely overturned by something better. However, it is occasionally improved by additional information. Darwin's basic theory has been changed by genetics, by neutralist theory, and by punctuated equilibrium.
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
God is not accessible to science, so He is neither a scientific theory nor a scientific fact. You must find God other ways.
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
As you learned, God and His word is consistent with evolution. Couldn't be otherwise. He created nature, after all.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
If he was really stupid, he might. Science can't prove or disprove God.
Remember, evolutionary theory is just the way scientists explain the observed fact of evolution.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 11:01:17
Remember, evolutionary theory is just the way scientists explain the observed fact of evolution.
And I suggest that scientist keep it that way.
Remember, science can't even comment on God.
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.
Michael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.
I've seen the evidence, so it's quite clear to me, as it is for almost all Christians who are scientists.
But I and I'd say, with the common man who does not observe what you scientist observe, have no reason to say that evolution is a fact.
Not knowing about something, is a disadvantage, yes.
What we have is the word of God in scriptures.
And these scriptures do not in any way deny the fact of evolution.
On #6: That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
Michael:
I don't see it to be.
Doesn't matter. The truth is what it is, regardless. God doesn't say how He created each kind. So it's an open question theologically. But the evidence is compelling. Nevertheless you are no less Christian because of your new interpretation of Genesis. It makes no difference at all to your salvation, even if you are a YE creationist.
On #7: That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.
Kinds. In one sense, since all known life on Earth has more in common genetically than ways by which it differs, there is one kind. However, God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded.
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
It is an addition to scripture which I do not think is warranted.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.
Michael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
What evidence?
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution?
What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution?
"
the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.
Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "
Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution?
"
The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.
Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.
I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.
Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.
Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.
I've seen the evidence, so it's quite clear to me, as it is for almost all Christians who are scientists.
You and most scientist may claim that. But certainly, the vast majority of us humans have not seen what you considered evidence. Must evolution, not be like what science call gravity, the evidence of which is seen by all humans? That sure is more than just an indication, but is evidence to the fact that evolution, especially that of the evolution of man, is something that is not observable as to even be considered to be covered by science, more so be said to be a scientific fact.
: Michael2012 Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:15:30
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.
Michael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
What evidence?
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution?
What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution?
"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.
Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution?
"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.
Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.
I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.
Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.
Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #6: That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
Michael:
I don't see it to be.
Doesn't matter. The truth is what it is, regardless. God doesn't say how He created each kind. So it's an open question theologically. But the evidence is compelling. Nevertheless you are no less Christian because of your new interpretation of Genesis. It makes no difference at all to your salvation, even if you are a YE creationist.
If you do not find evolution consistent with scriptures, would you believe still in the Bible? I hope so. And if you do, what would evolution be to you, being a scientist?
Now, you think that evolution is consistent with scriptures, do you think you now know HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures?
As a Christian, do you believe that creation was subjected to futility? That creation is under the bondage of corruption? That someday creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption? As a Christian scientist, how does these truths relate to what science call evolution?
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #7: That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.
Kinds. In one sense, since all known life on Earth has more in common genetically than ways by which it differs, there is one kind. However, God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded.
"kinds" it is then. Sorry for the error.
Initial creation? Where do you get this? Not in scriptures, to be sure. It's coming from your scientific mind I guess.
You said "God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded."
Well, that is what you say, according only to your interpretation.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
It is an addition to scripture which I do not think is warranted.
Did you miss out my comment on this matter? Let me copy and paste it here so you can comment on it.
Gen. 27 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Clearly, God first formed man of the dust of the ground. Then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The result, man became a living being.
Before God breathed into the nostrils of man which God had formed of the dust of the ground, is the man without life or already with life? The answer is: without life.
: Amo Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:36:09
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
Do you think so?
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
Job 38:3-12~"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;"
Such arrogance.......... of man to think that he can explain the underpinnings of creation,
without God. That he can date and measure the foundations of the earth
without ever being there to know. And make no mistake,
this is a war of religions. And we are being beaten down by repetition of this indoctrination of the Evolution religion. When we watch programs like National Geographic, Paleo world, Archaeology Today, and
other one-sided presentations,
eventually through repetition man is literally brainwashed concerning evolution. Because it
"appears" from the information which man "continually" hears, that the world must be billions of years old, based on all the
(so-called) scientific evidence. But that verse I read before, Hebrews 11:3,
tells the true story. The story of which man seldom has the ear to listen. And the reason is because he has become so deceived by these teachers, that he often (sometimes unconsciously) places more faith in their words, than in what is actually written in scripture itself.
And that is nothing but unbelief. Especially with the new breed of post modern Theologians who have effectively been raised up under this constant indoctrination. Many have lost their faith in God's word, and gained a new faith in
man's Religion of self. So while many professing Christians continue to claim that they have every bit as much faith in God's word as we do, in practice they prove otherwise by being led away in this error, and seeking to rationalize it away "because" of the new ideas that the evolutionists have put forth.
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God,
while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said?
Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning. Beware and take heed!
2nd Corinthians 4:13~"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which
is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them.
"No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing.
That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create
and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God?
The fact is, God simply said, "Let there be light..." and there was! And when He created light from the stars to the earth,
it was upon the earth instantly! It didn't take a million years, it was created 'in transit' instantly. The power to say and have it be, this is the power of The TRUE GOD of the holy scriptures, not the pseudo paper god that man invents. I find it absolutely astounding that someone calling themselves Christian (Supposedly knowing the power of God) would think that this type of creation power was unlikely, or hard to believe. Is God a man, or is He the Almighty? It's the very same way God created a mature human instantly (Adam), who was instantly capable of making mature decisions the very "day" he was created. God didn't create a tiny baby and wait years and years until Adam grew to be a man, He created a grown man, already mature, from the very dust of the earth. It didn't take Him 18 to 21 years to have Adam become a man. He did it in one day. And again, note carefully for those nay-sayers asking why would God create the appearance of a mature earth, Adam may have also
"appeared" (Hebrews 11:3) to be many years old, but that appearance had absolutely no basis in fact about his actual age, did it? An Omnipotent God doesn't follow the laws of the universe,
He creates them! They follow the patterns and courses that He has set, not vise versa. And that is what these man does not seem to fully comprehend.
Genesis 2:7-8~"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
So are we believers, or are we suffering from the unbelief of the world? Did man form by evolution from an ape, or on the sixth day, did God form man out of the dust of the earth, and then breathe the breath of life into him? I guess the answer we give all depends on
what religion we subscribe to, and whom we put our faith in. If we practice the religion of man, who serves himself as the authority and ruler, then we will put our trust in the words of our god. And we will serve in his temple in lawlessness. On the other hand, if we practice the religion of true Christianity, then we will follow the laws of God, and put our trust in the words of our God, and will serve Him in His temple. So every Christian, in the Spirit of Christ, must finally decide whom he will serve. Not by what appears to be in our own eyes, but by what God says.
Proverbs 16:2~ "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits."
Sinful man is in love with himself, and has been from the beginning. And self-flattery is the universal sin of the humanist in this vanity. For he is unable to comprehend the miracle of God, and the infallible nature of His word. Like the earth, Adam was created mature. Indeed, if it were possible that the scientists today could go back in time with all their sophisticated toys and examine Adam on the very day of his creation,
they would most assuredly proclaim in scientific bliss that Adam was definitely and scientifically irrefutably well over the age of one day. Yet they would be wrong, wouldn't they? Because God created Adam from the dust with the appearance and workings of age, while in "truth" he was actually only one day old. Not by what would appear to be in the eyes of man, but by what was accurate and written as God's undefiled declarations. In order that man is not confused, God told us that He created man on one day, which was one period of evening and morning. The question is, do we believe Him? As it is written, "..yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings.."
Because of this indoctrination, everyone isn't aware that scientific fact and evolutionary theories are not synonymous. These scientists make untenable claims and invalidated assumptions, and man simply accepts them as their gospel. Like the theory that everything evolved from single cell organisms. These things in themselves are as faith based as any belief that true Christians have. Especially given the very scientific laws, which they claim to be following. How this single cell just started duplicating itself, becoming both male and female over the years, mutating each version of itself, yet holding and surviving in a hostile environment,
is the stuff of science fiction, not science. We would expect the world to be deceived by these theories, but what is truly disturbing is the lengths that the Church has been snared by this delusion. So much so that it is slowly but surely falling from the faith. From the Biblical perspective, it is totally contrary to scripture. So how can they believe this mutation theory, when God says He created Woman from a rib of Adam. Did she evolve from Adam or was she created from a rib? Again, it depends on if we are going to believe God, or believe man. Do we believe the scriptures, or do we instead believe the scientific journals. Do we believe the word of God that Adam was created a man, or man in saying he started out a single cell organism? Do we privately interpret the scriptures according to each new theory the scientists propagate,
or do we let God be the interpreter of His own word? These are the questions that Christians of old answered unequivocally, unwaveringly, and confidently, but that today has them curiously scratching their collective heads, and wondering where is truth.
Genesis 2:21-23~"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
If Adam was a blob of cell matter, why did he need to sleep so God could open him up and take his rib? Did God actually cause a deep sleep to fall upon a single cell organism to create a female version? Is the Bible all just a fable, or some fairy tale that God made up to as a bedtime story for Christians? God forbid,
this is the absolute truth of God's word. The Agnostics, Atheists and Humanists call it a fable, but God declares that this is what He actually did. God's people trusted God's word concerning this for thousands and thousands of years. Only now, in our day of the rise of
the Religion of evolution, are many of the Church looking at God's word as just a tall tale or an allegory that we never got around to interpreting. Our Lord tells all his faithful Prophets for thousands of years that He made the universe in six days, and since creation they accepted and believed it as literally six days. But now, in this time of growing wanton wickedness,
we are supposed to believe that righteous God is revealing this secret to evolutionary scientists, who for the most part aren't even Christian? What is wrong with this picture?
The truth is, man has become so smart (in his own eyes) in his own worldly knowledge, that he figures he can rule himself and exalt himself up to God-like status to know the secrets of creation. And the Church, departing from the faith, falls right in line by privately interpreting God's word in a way which is tortuous and self serving, in order to conform with these modern ideas.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God
I have no idea how you could make that up from what I've said.
who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so.
You still don't get it. All things are possible with God. That doesn't mean He can't do things He hasn't done. Since He didn't give us the details on how he brought forth new species, it clearly isn't important to the message He's giving us in the Bible. That should be good enough for you.
If he chose not to tell us that, it's better for you not to add it to scripture. Let Him be God, and decide what is important.
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
Some things God left for us to find out for ourselves. How the diversity of life was created by Him, that's one of those things. It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them. "No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing. That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God?
This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.
However, it has numerous flaws. One notable flaw is this: If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences. Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light. If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation.
If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed. Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive. Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.
So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 06:32:35
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
Some things God left for us to find out for ourselves. How the diversity of life was created by Him, that's one of those things. It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures. It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here. And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.
<<It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.>>So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW? We learn from God and follow His lead. God knows what's good for us.
Consider and meditate on the following:
Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.Leave plenty of room for faith. For the more you have it, the more you can please God.
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
He doesn't say how in scripture, but He did leave plenty of evidence, showing us how He did it. Would you like to learn a little about how we know?
It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.
As He says in Genesis, He used nature to do that.
And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 17:34:31
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
He doesn't say how in scripture, but He did leave plenty of evidence, showing us how He did it. Would you like to learn a little about how we know?
It's clear enough, scripture don't say every detail of HOW.
Very well then, give us a little about what you say How you know it, as you please.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 17:34:31
It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.
As He says in Genesis, He used nature to do that.
And that's not exactly what God said. Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
I don't understand and see it that way. What faith tells me and let me understand, is that God created everything by His word, so that the
things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. And that God did so, by Christ, through Him and for Him, and that in Him all things consist.
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 17:34:31And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say. Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures. And there is no need to justify it Barbarian. It won't change what it is you claim.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 17:34:31
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else. These is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God have made, and not to HOW God made things.
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 06:37:11This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.
No theological problem sir,
none whatsoever. Neither are there
practical problems since his true children
refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think, which men like you do, and must do to convinced yourself and others that you are wise~ wiser than simple-minded believers who LOOK to the scriptures for their answers and not to men who refuse to come to the word of God as little children and be taught by the Spirit of the Living God....that's BELOW THEM and their high opinion of themselves.
: The BarbarianHowever, it has numerous flaws. One notable flaw is this: If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.
Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe
that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS,
no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that? If not, then we must not deceive ourselves into believing that we know the God of the holy scriptures.
If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.
God has never and will never be faced with any consequences, he rules nature and determines its laws, which laws he is NOT subject to, for with him NOTHING is impossible...he controls all and uses them for his own purpose and glory.
Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light.
Not with God, and it would be foolish to think so and a sign of us creating a god after our own imagination which is what most do btw. True believers look to the SCRIPTURES for all answer and they are there that is PROFITABLE!
2nd Timothy 3:16,17~All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
: The BarbarianIf it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation.
Only at creation, and during the creation of the earth and all things therein, God WAS NOT subject to any laws that man may THINKS he understands.
: The BarbarianIf He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed. Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive. Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.
Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god. The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited~ it is only limited by our pitiful and limited faith and understanding, because we know SO LITTLE of his greatness and power, and others know less who do not trust the scriptures above all of the wisdom of man!
Job 36:26~"Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out."
Sir, if you can search out the years of God, then
maybe you could learn a little more of his greatness~but that will never happen, for it is beyond our power to do so. Read Job from chapter 32-to the end! It should humble all of us when we begin to think we know about God when in truth, we know so little of his greatness.
: The BarbarianSo it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.
That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS~
even though he could have done everything in
a twinkling of an eye just as quick as the resurrection shall take place in the last day.
And that's not exactly what God said.
Gravity isn't exactly what God said, either. God didn't tell us about everything. The important thing is that science and scripture do not contradict each other.
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.
I don't understand and see it that way.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.
God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins.
Barbarian observes:
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
Yes, it's very clear how that happened, and getting clearer all the time. He uses nature for almost everything in this world, and He made it knowable for us, so that we could get along in His world.
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Barbarian explains:
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
Which is sufficient. I'm just pointing out that a deeper understanding of His creation will enrich your faith.
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.
No. Let's take another look...
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him,
from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. (my emphasis)
Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen. In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.
These is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God has made, and not to HOW God made things.
God is telling you something very important here. Listen to Him.
Barbarian observes:
This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.
No theological problem sir, none whatsoever.
Huge problems. For example, the issue of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. But definition, a logical absurdity.
Neither are there practical problems since his true children refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think
Hence YE creationists, who have convinced themselves that they are wise, wiser than traditional Christians who accept God's word as it is. Their high opinion of themselves is not sufficient for us to abandon scripture.
However, it has numerous flaws. One notable flaw is this: If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences. Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light. If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation.
Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS, no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that?
Your difficulty here is that although God could have miraculously set aside everything He ordained in this world to make your story true, it is a very bad idea to suppose that the answer to every flaw is to imagine a new, non-scriptural miracle. Once you start doing that, any story is equally plausible.
No, that's not where you want to go, if you care about truth.
Barbarian observes:
If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed. Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive. Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.
Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god.
My God
is truth. There is no deception in Him, or by Him. He will not deceive us.
The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited
It is His nature. And his truthfulness is not a limitation.
So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.
That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS
But, of course, it doesn't say six literal days. That's a modern revision to His word.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
And that's not exactly what God said.
Gravity isn't exactly what God said, either. God didn't tell us about everything. The important thing is that science and scripture do not contradict each other.
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures. What scriptures says is that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.
I'm sorry to say that you have not. At least as pertains to God creating the different kinds of living things by using nature, called perhaps "creation by evolution". To the contrary, I find what you teach as contrary to scriptures which says the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
I don't understand and see it that way.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution. And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.
God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins.
Barbarian observes:
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things. But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
Yes, it's very clear how that happened, and getting clearer all the time. He uses nature for almost everything in this world, and He made it knowable for us, so that we could get along in His world.
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Barbarian explains:
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
Which is sufficient. I'm just pointing out that a deeper understanding of His creation will enrich your faith.
If that's what you are pointing, then no problem. But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God. For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man, and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of. If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.
No. Let's take another look...
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. (my emphasis)
Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen. In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.
These, is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God has made, and not to HOW God made things.
God is telling you something very important here. Listen to Him.
Yes, Paul said that God's invisible qualities are seen. Where? In the things made - the WHAT have been created.
And here's what God is saying in scriptures, listen to Him.
Romans 1:19-20 [EMPHASIS MINE]
19
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
In my previous post, I said:
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
You have commented on every simple statement I made, yet seemingly, you have not on this, I'd say, more important portion. Anything you want to comment on this?
https://www.isgenesishistory.com/ (https://www.isgenesishistory.com/)
Just watched the movie on Amazon. Good stuff.
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.
That's not debatable; He did:
Gen. 1:11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.
I'm sorry to say that you have not.
See above. That's what God said. Why not just accept it His way?
I don't understand and see it that way.
Barbarian observes:
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of creationism, and claim that it's required for all Christians to believe it.
And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.
I'm pleased that you understand this. Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.
It merely shows that God expects us to use our minds to learn about His creation. And that includes the way He used nature to produce the diversity of life on Earth.
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.
Yes, this is the case. This is why the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.
But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.
No, that's wrong. Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, or churches in union with them. The next largest are the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Both acknowledge that creation is consistent with evolution. So do the various Anglican churches, and all but one group of Lutheran churches, and many, many others.
Barbarian observes:
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
So He tells us in His creation.
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?
Do you believe God created you? When do you suppose He'll stop creating people. Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this? Or are you not a creature of God?
But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.
Doesn't seem very likely. For example, Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project, is a devout evangelical Christian, and acknowledges the fact of evolution.
For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,
You're confusing the material world with "everything." Science is limited to the physical universe. By definition, it can't know anything beyond nature. Fortunately, scientists can.
and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.
If we could do all that, and someday we might, what would that mean to our relationship with God? I don't see that it would change at all.
If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.
You misunderstand what God meant when he said we had become like Him. That is not what He meant.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen. In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.
God is telling you something very important here. Listen to Him.
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
I already explained to you that science can't do that. You're expecting it to be something it can never be. It is limited to the physical universe. Yes, if you understand more about His creation, it can make you closer to Him. But science won't do it for you. But I'll repeat it one more time.
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating. THAT is not debatable. Soil does not create corn. That is done because the SEEDS bring forth after its own kind, by a pre-programed formula input by God, not the earth. Giraffes breed and produce offspring giraffes after the oarents kind. Not because of the earth, but because of God hand and design.
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.
Of course. God created all things. He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see. My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves. The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien." I don't think so.
THAT is not debatable.
Right.
Soil does not create corn.
Yeah, the direct bringing forth of a complex eukaryotic organism would be contrary to what we see in the fossil record and genetic data. Primitive life first developing and later evolving into eukaryotes, would be more consistent with the evidence (and also consistent with scripture).
That is done because the SEEDS bring forth after its own kind, by a pre-programed formula input by God, not the earth.
God has no need to "program." He built the capacity for living things to evolve into the very fabric of life. One of the great engineering discoveries of the 21st century was that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. Genetic algorithms, using evolutionary processes of random variation and natural selection, are increasingly being used to fine-tune processes and machines. God is wiser than we suspected.
Giraffes breed and produce offspring giraffes after the oarents kind.
Modern giraffes are quite a bit different than those of earlier times. They diversified in the great ungulate radiation, and there are still several living branches, some of them relatively primitive compared to African giraffes. The actual reason for the unusual adaptations of modern giraffes is kind interesting. Like deer antlers, it turns out that neck length is allometric in giraffes, and only later became adaptive. Would you like to see what we know about it?
Not because of the earth, but because of God hand and design.
"Design" is what limited creatures must do, because we can't truly create.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.
That's not debatable; He did:
Gen. 1:11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Well then, we just then have to agree to disagree on this then.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.
I'm sorry to say that you have not.
See above. That's what God said. Why not just accept it His way?
As I have said above, we just then have to agree to disagree on this then.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
I don't understand and see it that way.
Barbarian observes:
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of creationism, and claim that it's required for all Christians to believe it.
And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.
I'm pleased that you understand this. Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.
I'm glad you're pleased.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.
It merely shows that God expects us to use our minds to learn about His creation. And that includes the way He used nature to produce the diversity of life on Earth.
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.
Yes, this is the case. This is why the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.
But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.
No, that's wrong. Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, or churches in union with them. The next largest are the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Both acknowledge that creation is consistent with evolution. So do the various Anglican churches, and all but one group of Lutheran churches, and many, many others.
Can you provide proof that the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God, or with the scriptures, and that creation is consistent with evolution?
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
Barbarian observes:
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
So He tells us in His creation.
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?
Do you believe God created you? When do you suppose He'll stop creating people. Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this? Or are you not a creature of God?
What you say here does not address the issue Barbarian. Procreation or the matter of begetting, generation and production, is different from the matter of creation by evolution, specifically that, of the creation of new kinds of living things.
I can see that the Christian scientist have had yet to make an hypothesis on the matter as to when God will complete the creation of the different kinds of living things, or when this ever continuing creation of different kinds of living things by evolution is accomplished by God and ends.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.
Doesn't seem very likely. For example, Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project, is a devout evangelical Christian, and acknowledges the fact of evolution.
But Francis Collins is but one scientist, and is not all of the scientist. Besides, Francis Collins may well be a devout evangelical Christian, but I think that he acknowledges the evolution, not because of that, but because he is a scientist.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,
You're confusing the material world with "everything." Science is limited to the physical universe. By definition, it can't know anything beyond nature. Fortunately, scientists can.
And by "everything", I mean to refer to that which science is limited with, as you say, the physical universe.
And let me add, not only science can't know anything beyond nature, nor could a any man for that matter, not even the scientists can. Yet science and scientists speaks of things such as the origin of life, which is a thing beyond nature and is not of the physical.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.
If we could do all that, and someday we might, what would that mean to our relationship with God? I don't see that it would change at all.
That's what you say.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.
You misunderstand what God meant when he said we had become like Him. That is not what He meant.
No, what I said there is a comment in relation to what you said in the matter of getting closer to God in relation to knowing His creation, with regards evolution. And my comment is not in any way, shape or form, about what God meant when He said we had become like Him.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
I already explained to you that science can't do that. You're expecting it to be something it can never be. It is limited to the physical universe. Yes, if you understand more about His creation, it can make you closer to Him. But science won't do it for you. But I'll repeat it one more time.
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.
Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder. Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
Brother, the answer to your question is absolutely. Our God who is infinite in knowledge created the worlds and all things, visible and invisible, to work perfectly and for its resources to last as long as he needed them to last til the appointed time~thereforth, there are NO CHANCES for failure, (the unbelievers of this world are convinced that THEY must police people to make sure their earth is not destroyed) that's borderline of blasphemy which I know you would not do, but many do with their understanding and following men who think they are wise with their
little problems and stumbling blocks that they
are convinced that proves YEC'S to be fools~ and the scriptures not giving us sufficient information to trust God's word
above them and their wisdom. The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
The God of the Bible is referred to in the Bible (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 43:1, Romans 1:25, etc.) as Creator of all that is, not the developer of some system that eventually produces all that is.To create by fiat (Genesis 1) implies the act of bringing something into existence directly and purposefully,
not eventually and by chance.
Evolutionary theory (i.e. Darwinianism), on the other hand, has always been based on naturalism and has never postulated a role of any sort for the Creator God of the Bible. So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts. The resulting hybrid views are variously referred to today as Deistic evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism, BioLogos, Framework interpretation, Day-Age and Gap theories. All such views are rejected by proponents of literal Biblical creationism and naturalistic evolution~with good reason.
Intellectually sharp scientific minds (past and present) such as Assimov, Sagan, Dawkins, and Provine have all been absolutely consistent in saying that if an impersonal, inanimate evolutionary system can rearrange molecules and chemicals in such a way as to have produced all that is,
then there is certainly no need or place for God and religious myth in this world~they TRULY understand this and is the driving force behind TRYING to linked the two together!
: BarbarianSome creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.
For a short side note.....Sir, ALL given to Christ by God, WILL COME TO HIM~our love for God, or hatred toward God CANNOT affect a person's free gift of eternal life, impossible.
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
Obviously, evolution is no different than anything else in this world. It's all God's creation. Without macroevolution, life would never have produced us. And it was God's intention to produce us.
Macroevolution is directly observed to happen. Even many creationists now admit that speciation is an observed fact.
One species does not evolve into another.
Even many YE creationists admit that it's a fact. From one of the largest creationist organizations, "Answers in Genesis:"
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.
Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/
It is true that speciation is an observed fact. They have one thing wrong there, however. It was never the church's position that each kind of living thing was created as it is. Indeed, St. Augustine pointed out that God created the potentiality for different living things, from which they appeared over time.
It's impossible to deny macroevolution, so AIG did the next best thing; they redefined "macroevolution" to exclude the evolution of new species. The Institute for Creation Research has redefined it to exclude the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms. The catch-22 here is that in doing so, they put humans and all other apes into the same kind.
Rock and a hard place.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Which is why He created evolution. It was the way He chose to produce life in all its variety.
Evolutionary theory (i.e. Darwinianism), on the other hand, has always been based on naturalism and has never postulated a role of any sort for the Creator God of the Bible.
That's also true of gravitational theory (i.e. Newtonianism). Science can't even discuss the supernatural. However this...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
...which is the last sentence of Darwin's
The Origin of Species, makes it clear that the theory in no way rules out God's creation.
So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.
No, that's wrong. If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever. Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.
Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
He's the Creator. Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything. Hence St. Paul's point:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation. It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you. So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done. Last summer, out on the Olympic Peninsula, I had just such a moment, and recorded the scene:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8899/28711908665_22cde7d7c1_z.jpg)
It may not look like much to you, but that light coming through the canopy, the tree, the land, and the living things there, all showed me His wisdom and power, and I was transfixed.
This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him. Learn from it.
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Amen! In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly. That, they contend, evolved into another Fly that looks the same but some genetic marker(s) are different. Ever had a child, Barb?
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:44:45
So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.
No, that's wrong. If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever. Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.
Richard Dawkins denies God exists, how could he then ever admit that our world is consistent with God?
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
I believe that God is the creator of all things, but because the books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago for a largely illiterate group of people... I would not presume that the Genesis account of Creation was an accurate representation of how it transpired.
Why did Jesus speak in parables?
Amen! In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.
Or in our case, a primate became another primate. We are actually much loser in looks to a chimp than a housefly resembles D. miranda. Closer genetically, too. And we know genetic matches show relatedness, because we can check it on organisms of known descent.
Richard Dawkins denies God exists
He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html)
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist. It's limited to the physical universe.
I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died. I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be. Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world. And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.
When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.
And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:57:28
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.
Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
He's the Creator. Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything. Hence St. Paul's point:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation. It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you. So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done.
This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him. Learn from it.
I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures that Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. That in Jesus, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. These truths speaks loud and clear that nothing can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God, other than the person of Jesus Christ.
Concerning what Paul said in Rom. 1:20, let me quote, including v.19:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being. Paul obviously was not referring to something that man has been able to discover through various scientific study, such as DNA. So, what God has made, the creation, bears testimony about His invisible qualities, even His eternal power and Godhead.
We see several characteristics of this revelation of God's invisible attributes:
1. It is clear, evident and plain, and all man is aware of (for God hath shewed it unto them).
2. It is understood by all man (so that they are without excuse) BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE (does not say by how things are made).
3. It has been there since the creation of the world (from the creation of the world are clearly seen).
4. It is not a full revelation, in the sense that it does not reveal everything about God, such as His mercy, His love and grace, but only some such as His power and Godhead.
It is wise for one to ponder about this. I won't be surprised if this will lead him to Christ, who is the express image, the exact representation of the invisible God, the Creator.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 12:58:25
Richard Dawkins denies God exists
He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html)
you should read his books.
you should read his books.
I've read a couple of them. Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me. And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.
I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures
As one humble and perceptive Christian noted, truth cannot contradict truth. If a person sets pride aside, and lets Him in, then it becomes clear that there is no contradiction. Jesus is not just the best way to learn about God. He is God, fully and completely.
These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being.
Yes, you're getting to the heart of this; he's saying that if you look at creation with an open and willing heart, you will see His power and Godhead. Now this means that a hunter, for example, does not use faith in tracking game, but if he opens himself to what he has learned, it will tell him about God.
Likewise, those of other avocations will, if they open themselves to the fact, learn about Him. Not as hunters or scientists, or plumbers, but in the creation with which they work. Science is no different than any other in this regard.
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Not a matter of deflection but a matter of relevance, and I honestly can't bother less about what you guess.
Your question is based on a hypothetical. A response would be hypothetical as well and therefore useless to this discussion.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 15:55:12
you should read his books.
I've read a couple of them. Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me. And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 12:58:25
Richard Dawkins denies God exists
He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html)
Sad article.
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. And that man actually managed to become an archbishop.
Just shows how deep Christianity has sunk in some parts of our society if it can no longer discern where Satan is at work.
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God. Hence, he's an agnostic.
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.
Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.
The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html)
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.
It stings the pride of some people, but of course, it is consistent with God's word and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Would you like to see some of it?
Satan loves dividing God's people and setting them against each other. While we may differ on exactly how God created our bodies, we should remember that it's not a salvation issue, and we should avoid making an idol of either evolution or creationism.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:04:46
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God. Hence, he's an agnostic.
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
Yep. He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:27:20
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
Yep. He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.
That's what liars do...they lie.
If you, after reading his books, can't see what Dawkins is then I feel sorry for you.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 20:50:39
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.
Of course. God created all things. He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see. My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves. The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien." I don't think so.
What Jaime is emphasizing is on the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" which speaks against any teaching that God created the different kinds of living things by the evolution that you speak about. Jaime explains too that the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures" does not mean that the earth does the creating. And that is certainly not what it means.
Let me share to you a bit of my study of some verses of the Genesis scriptures, in relation to this important point.
On the 5th day:
KJV
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.
The Hebrew scripture translated in English as "bring forth" in v.20 is "sharats" which means swarm or teem. It does not denote any sort of creation process at all. In v.21, the Hebrew scripture translated in English as "brought forth" is the same "sharats".
We can see this meaning clearly in the NKJV version:
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Further, in v.20, it says "and fowl that may fly above the earth" (KJV). By your take on evolution which you tie up with the phrase "bring forth", that would mean that the waters brought forth fowl, would it not?
Further still, v.20 states what God said, and v.21 states what God did, that is, He
created great sea creatures and
every living thing that moves,
with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and
every winged bird
according to its kind. "
created"~ meaning past and done.
What is your comment on this?
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 13:13:30
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist. It's limited to the physical universe.
I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died. I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be. Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world. And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.
When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.
And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.
What if the question was:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth. It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.
Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
: AVZ Mon May 01, 2017 - 00:30:13This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God. Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
AVZ's analysis is absolutely true. To a confess measure of faith in evolution is a sign of a measure of unbelief that is not much different to a staunch God-hating atheist. Evolution is an idea from the old serpent, the enemy of God and truth. It's the doctrine/god of Mystery Babylon, both commercial and the great whore~who portrays as a daughter of Jehovah, but who are in truth from the generation of the wicked.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:27:20Yep. He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.
NO MAN CAN OR CANNOT~to know is a GIFT given, ONCE given, then we know by many infallible proofs that ONLY children of faith CAN SEE.
Acts 1:3~"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"
Faith is free gift given to the seed of Jesus Christ, that he secured FOR THEM. The word of God has many, many truths, where faith must be used to believe, the list is long, beginning with a serpent TALKING to a woman! The faith that Jesus Christ had is the VERY FAITH that every child of promise lives by~which men like Dawkins mock and make fun of...but one day, we shall laugh, and he shall mourn to see just how delusional he was!
Galatians 2:20~"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
You see, it takes FAITH to believe that we were crucified WITH CHRIST and that the very life we now live is by the FAITH OF CHRIST that has been freely imparted to us. The battle is not so much over evolution, but EVERY SOUND DOCTRINE that's recorded for us to believe...CREATION just happens to be one of them. It is the very first truth that one must believe and hold fast to, or the others hidden truths will never be seen and understood.
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men
in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit
whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God,
while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true,
they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning.
2 Corinthians 4:13~ "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which as we said above~is the faith of Christ.
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth.
It's called "parthenogenesis." And there's no absolute bar to it happening in humans, although it's so unlikely that we will almost certainly never see a documented case other than the one God produced miraculously.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html)
Happens in other organisms, though; just not mammals, unless there's a series of rather unlikely events.
It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.
Humans anyway. But why would it surprise you that Jesus could produce a miracle?
Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.
Actually, he asked if you would accept it. Couple of caveats:
1. science never actually proves things; it just gathers evidence to the point that it's foolish to believe otherwise. The way you depend on most things you find to be true in your daily life.
2. Evolution, including speciation, has been directly observed. So not really a concern.
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.
That might be a problem for an atheist, but I'm guessing that Alan knows that God can do miracles.
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.
Science depends on evidence alone. It can't involve faith, because it has no way to evaluate faith as a way of knowing.
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
No, you're wrong about that. God created everything, and evolution is just one of the ways he did it.
: Alan Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 04:28:43
: Alan Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists
have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
: Alan Tue May 02, 2017 - 05:19:07
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 04:28:43
: Alan Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.
You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question? ::frown:: ???
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 06:01:02
: Alan Tue May 02, 2017 - 05:19:07
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 04:28:43
: Alan Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.
You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question? ::frown:: ???
What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question. ???
: Amo Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:36:09
: Michael2012 Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:15:30
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.
Michael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
What evidence?
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution?
What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution?
"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.
Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution?
"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.
Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.
I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.
Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.
Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
He, he, he, he he! Your right, I haven't evolved, I'm still the mess my momma gave birth to, God blesself.s her pea picking
: Alan Tue May 02, 2017 - 06:04:53
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 06:01:02
: Alan Tue May 02, 2017 - 05:19:07
: Michael2012 Tue May 02, 2017 - 04:28:43
: Alan Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
: Michael2012 Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
: Alan Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
: AVZ Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
: geronimo Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.
You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question? ::frown:: ???
What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question. ???
Oooop! My bad. My sincere apologies.
And so, please ignore everything regarding that then.
I hope I got it right this time:
Alan: <<What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? >>
For me to answer properly, please clarify "to be the truth". Is it the truth, being that, God created the different kinds of living things using already created nature and evolved them for millions of years from there?
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
: The Barbarian Wed May 03, 2017 - 11:45:55Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!
2nd Timothy 1:9~"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
The doctrine is called
eternal justification. That's the ONLY and just way God could have been a friend of Abraham BEFORE the legal payment for our sins were paid for by Christ. Noah would have NEVER found grace in the eyes of God EXCEPT he was eternally justified by the grace of God BEFORE the foundation of this earth. Bottom line, when God purpose to do anything according to his will, IT IS AS GOOD AS DONE~for WHOM can defeat his will, or even hinder him? No one.
https://www.amazon.com/Justification-Eternity-Tercentenary-Appreciation-John/dp/0952707438
From Spurgeon's Sermons "Adoption", Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 7
But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification? My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds. Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness. So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled — in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. "Being justified by faith," I am told "I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine. But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time, — so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.
I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!
Not even Adam was so created. God says he was created after the world was created. You were formed in the womb long after that.
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.
"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, "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." We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. "
Charles Spurgeon,
The Power of the Holy Ghost
Proof of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Who died and rose from the grave and will come on back to get us all that believe in Him.
Proof of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Who died and rose from the grave and will come on back to get us all that believe in Him.
Yes. Whether we accept the fact of evolution or not. It makes no difference to our salvation.
: The Barbarian Wed May 03, 2017 - 17:29:29Not even Adam was so created. God says he was created after the world was created. You were formed in the womb long after that.
That's not the way you worded it. You asked:
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.
Now concerning Spurgeon's statement concerning the
gap theory~I respect much of what Spurgeon taught but he's was not a bible teacher as Gill, Brine, Richardson and many others before him~as a matter of truth, he was known more for his flowery speech and being a great orator than teaching bible truths. What he believe concerning creation were his personal beliefs which I know very little of his overall beliefs concerning creation but will investigate so I can be more knowledgeable~I only know what you quoted from here, if I had known more, then over the years I have forgotten, for I first read behind CHS around forty-five to fifty years ago. That's beginning to be a long time~it went SO FAST!
There is NO gap in Genesis 1:2,3, but the Holy Spirit is simply revealing to us the PROCESS of creation
STEP BY STEP AS God created this earth, and the worlds and all things therein. The Gap theory is JUST THAT, a theory by man which good men like Spurgeon may very well had been influenced by modern day Theistic Evolution....(from Darwin on)
One more thought:
Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!
: The Barbarian Wed May 03, 2017 - 11:45:55
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
Yes God did. And you? He created me long after He finished creating Adam and Eve, in whom all of mankind were descended from. I was not created by evolution, by the way, and neither was Adam and Eve. Were you created by evolution?
The question remains:
Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Barbarian observes:
Not even Adam was so created. God says he was created after the world was created. You were formed in the womb long after that.
That's not the way you worded it.
That's the way God worded it. Why not just accept it His way?
Barbarian asks:
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.
Sounds like you just found a really wordy and obscure way to agree with me. You were created in time, of course. So His creation is proceeding as each of us is born.
Now concerning Spurgeon's statement concerning the gap theory~I respect much of what Spurgeon taught but he's was not a bible teacher as Gill, Brine, Richardson and many others before him~as a matter of truth, he was known more for his flowery speech and being a great orator than teaching bible truths.
But in this case, he's just showing you what creationism was before the modern revision that gave us YE creationism. Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.
One more thought:
Quote
Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!
So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was? I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God. He is God. And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.
: The Barbarian Thu May 04, 2017 - 07:11:07So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was? I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God. He is God. And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.
I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures) and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.
Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.
Believe so? We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove? It proves not one thing. The majority has ALWAYS been wrong when it comes to spiritual truths!
Barbarian asks:
So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was? I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God. He is God. And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.
I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures)
Well, I can always learn more. If I were to boast about knowing more about it than others, it wouldn't really do me any good, would it?
and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.
I'll be waiting to hear.
Barbarian observes:
Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.
Believe so?
Yep. That was the form that was presented at the Scopes trial, for example. It was that way until the Seventh-Day Adventists passed their doctrines on to fundamentalists.
We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove?
Only that YE creationism is a modern doctrine, no older than the last century.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php (http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php)
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/04/3538701.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/04/3538701.htm)
How do evolutionists explain this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE)
: Amo Sat May 06, 2017 - 17:24:20
How do evolutionists explain this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106)
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine PufferfishHiroshi Kawase, Yoji Okata & Kimiaki Ito
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2106
AbstractWe report that male pufferfishes (Torquigener sp., Tetraodontidae) constructed large geometric circular structures on the seabed that played an important role in female mate choice. Males dug valleys at various angles in a radial direction, constructing nests surrounded by radially aligned peaks and valleys. Furthermore, they created irregular patterns in the nest comprising fine sand particles. The circular structure not only influences female mate choice but also functions to gather fine sand particles in nests, which are important in female mate choice. Strangely enough, the males never reuse the nest, always constructing a new circular structure at the huge cost of construction. This is because the valleys may not contain sufficient fine sand particles for multiple reproductive cycles.
: Victor08 Sat May 06, 2017 - 18:11:24
: Amo Sat May 06, 2017 - 17:24:20
How do evolutionists explain this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106)
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
Hiroshi Kawase, Yoji Okata & Kimiaki Ito
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2106
Abstract
We report that male pufferfishes (Torquigener sp., Tetraodontidae) constructed large geometric circular structures on the seabed that played an important role in female mate choice. Males dug valleys at various angles in a radial direction, constructing nests surrounded by radially aligned peaks and valleys. Furthermore, they created irregular patterns in the nest comprising fine sand particles. The circular structure not only influences female mate choice but also functions to gather fine sand particles in nests, which are important in female mate choice. Strangely enough, the males never reuse the nest, always constructing a new circular structure at the huge cost of construction. This is because the valleys may not contain sufficient fine sand particles for multiple reproductive cycles.
Simply describing what the fish does, does not explain how or why evolutionary processes would or could bring about such.
From your link:
ALL THE DNA IN OUR CHROMOSOMES IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE
Nature 20 October 2004
Your site is quite wrong:
Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.
More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins.
And now Edward Rubin's team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has shown that deleting large sections of non-coding DNA from mice appears not to affect their development, longevity or reproduction.
The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals' organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes. The results are reported in this week's Nature2.
The group has now created mice missing three million base pairs. "We can see no effect in them," Rubin says.
Tough test
Knowles cautions that the study doesn't prove that non-coding DNA has no function. "Those mice were alive, that's what we know about them," she says. "We don't know if they have abnormalities that we don't test for."
David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has investigated why genetic regions are conserved, says that Rubin's study gives no hint that the deleted DNA has a function. But he also believes that non-coding regions may have an effect too subtle to be picked up in the tests to far.
"Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years," he argues. "Darwinian selection is a tougher test."
There seems to be some non-coding DNA that has functions. But most of it, as shown here, can be removed with no observable effects. And of course, there's no reason at all why non-coding DNA can't be adapted by evolution to do some kind of function.
Most creationists have given up on this story. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were investigating functions of non-coding DNA.
From another of your links, the statement Pasteur was opposed to evolution. This is false. He acknowledged the fact.
The link also says that the fossil record has refuted evolution by a lack of transitionals. We can address this by a simple challenge. You give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form between the two. Which two would you like?
From another of your links:
Darwin's theory is further used to support the belief that ancient humans — Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Denisova — did not mix. In fact, based on Darwin's assumptions, most anthropologists claim that modern humans were simply descended from Cro-Magnons, who had exterminated their less-fit adversaries.
This is also false. The same genetics that shows all organisms have a common descent, shows that humans and Neandertals were subspecies, not separate species, and that many modern humans carry Neandertal DNA. You can't believe everything you see on the internet, sad as that is.
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
How do evolutionists explain this?
Mutation and natural selection.
Much more complex behavior than that has been shown to be the result of reflex arcs. Provisioning wasps burrows, termite nests, and so on have been so determined, often with examples of intermediate behaviors. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Like you said, you can't believe everything you see on the internet, and your responses are on the internet, as well as that which I have supplied. You will continue your non stop war with the word of God along with all the other evolution cronies, denying that you are at war with that which you blatantly contradict, and I will continue to point out and declare that you are in fact at war with the word of God. God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian? One of us is not telling the truth. That means one of us is a liar. It doesn't matter if we believe the lie, liars end up in the lake of fire. This is according to Him who is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Paul shares the same testimony regarding those who have not the love of the truth and choose to believe lies.
2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
: Amo Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:49:21
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God? Absolutely nothing! (2 Peter 3:8). That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is. How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None. There is no "years" in the heaven of God.
Like you said, you can't believe everything you see on the internet, and your responses are on the internet, as well as that which I have supplied.
I'm citing
Nature which is one of the most well-regarded journals in science. As you see, the facts directly contradict your sources.
You will continue your non stop war with the word of God along with all the other evolution cronies,
As you may have seen, most Christians admit that evolution is consistent with God's word. It's not consistent with the modern doctrine of YE creationism, but that's man's invention, not God's word.
God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.
Your salvation does not in any way depend on your opinion of evolution. Unless you make an idol of creationism, you will be as welcome in heaven as one who accepts that evolution is God's creation.
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
Jesus says that we will not know until it's upon us.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.
That's good enough for me.
One of us is not telling the truth. That means one of us is a liar.
I'd prefer to think you are sincere in your belief, and merely mistaken.
It's a very bad idea to add new requirements for salvation. Let God decide, and accept it His way.
: The Barbarian Sun May 07, 2017 - 16:30:03
God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.
Your salvation does not in any way depend on your opinion of evolution. Unless you make an idol of creationism, you will be as welcome in heaven as one who accepts that evolution is God's creation.
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.
Either way, I find them as being opinions. Let me move on to discuss other matters with you, by initially throwing in a few questions.
Questions:
1. Is it necessary to believe that God
created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were
created BY God, and FOR God, and that
God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.
If you meant that accepting that God created different kinds of living things by evolution will not cost one his salvation, unless he makes an idol of evolution, you are exactly right.
[quote[1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?[/quote]
Jesus provided you with a list of things you must do it you want to spend eternity with him. He summarized them in Matthew 25:31-46. That's what He says will determine your eternal home.
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
See above. I don't see how you would do it, without accepting that He created all things. How He created all things is not critical.
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?
I don't think man's new doctrines are really of any use in salvation.
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word
ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
: The Barbarian Mon May 08, 2017 - 06:29:49
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.
If you meant that accepting that God created different kinds of living things by evolution will not cost one his salvation, unless he makes an idol of evolution, you are exactly right.
1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?
Jesus provided you with a list of things you must do it you want to spend eternity with him. He summarized them in Matthew 25:31-46. That's what He says will determine your eternal home.
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer. I am not asking for a list of things one must do.
: The Barbarian Mon May 08, 2017 - 06:29:49
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
See above. I don't see how you would do it, without accepting that He created all things. How He created all things is not critical.
A direct answer would be nice and in order.
: The Barbarian Mon May 08, 2017 - 06:29:49
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?
I don't think man's new doctrines are really of any use in salvation.
Please just answer the questions and avoid evading them. Thanks.
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
: Michael2012 Mon May 08, 2017 - 09:14:00
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.
I gave you Jesus' direct answer. He tells you specifically what you must do to spend eternity with Him. Do that, He says, and you will. Don't do it, and you spend eternity with Satan and his angels. What more do you want Him to tell you? Theology won't save you. Satan is a master theologian. What will save you is following Jesus.
If this puzzles you, read Luke 10:25-37 Why did Jesus tell His followers to emulate a heretic instead of the thelogically correct Levite?
When you understand that, you'll understand what it is that will bring you salvation.
: 4WD Sun May 07, 2017 - 14:33:33
: Amo Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:49:21
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God? Absolutely nothing! (2 Peter 3:8). That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is. How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None. There is no "years" in the heaven of God.
Yea, but the first time He didn't have all the saints in heaven with Him, whom He had promised a new heaven and a new earth some of which He described. Do you think He'll have them waiting around billions of years for the new heaven and earth to evolve? Or are all those promises and the book of Revelation just like Genesis to you. Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around. So, what do you think?
Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.
Why would you think evolution had anything at all to do with it? Evolution is part of nature. What God is promising us is far, far beyond nature.
: The Barbarian Mon May 08, 2017 - 21:57:21
Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.
Why would you think evolution had anything at all to do with it? Evolution is part of nature. What God is promising us is far, far beyond nature.
::thumbup::::thumbup::
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
: Amo Wed May 10, 2017 - 18:58:21
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
My goodness...so we will have to wait for another 15 billion years until heaven is ready?
: Amo Wed May 10, 2017 - 18:58:21
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon, It is a process dealing with procreation, not creation.
What a perfecly simple minded answer. Creation is found at the root of the word procreation. It is greatly dismissed as a fairytale but My God, the God of Creation created everything in six days. (Gen. 1)
: th1b.taylor Thu May 11, 2017 - 11:38:39
What a perfecly simple minded answer. Creation is found at the root of the word procreation.
Now that is funny to the point of stupid. Do you know the difference in meaning between create and procreate? Apparently not.
Let me see now.
The Earth was created in 6 literal days.
God rest on the 7th literal day.
Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
Now about that swamp land I want to sell ya.
Once again let me remind some people that the Genesis account was written for people
with no notion of science what so ever.
It was written BY people with no notion of science at all.
So God used evolution the first time,
In this world, He does.
but wont use it the second time, is that it?
It only works in nature. Not anywhere else.
If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe
God doesn't mention evolution, or gravity, or protons in the Bible.
then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution?
Because it only works in nature. Won't work beyond that.
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:00:49
: Michael2012 Mon May 08, 2017 - 09:14:00
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of
the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For
the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because
the creation itself also
will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the
whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that,
but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.
My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
Hmm... We can either believe that mankind eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God, or we can believe that rocks and snails and trees are eagerly awaiting that. Seems to be that the latter interpretation is obviously false.
Is 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. 17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Is 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord. 22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
2 Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth? Will this require evolution again or not, and why or why not? Do you believe this world will be destroyed and a new heaven and earth created for the saved? Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?
Why would it matter? He chose to do this world over a long period of time. What if He does it different next time? Should we be offended?
Will this require evolution
Evolution is part of nature. And the world to come is not natural. It's a mistake to impose what you know about this world on the world to come.
Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
I don't think that your misunderstandings about what we believe are holding you back as much as your inability to clearly explain what you believe.
: The Barbarian Thu May 11, 2017 - 20:40:42
Hmm... We can either believe that mankind eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God, or we can believe that rocks and snails and trees are eagerly awaiting that. Seems to be that the latter interpretation is obviously false.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance. The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.
: The Barbarian Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:58:56
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.
I gave you Jesus' direct answer. He tells you specifically what you must do to spend eternity with Him. Do that, He says, and you will. Don't do it, and you spend eternity with Satan and his angels. What more do you want Him to tell you? Theology won't save you. Satan is a master theologian. What will save you is following Jesus.
If this puzzles you, read Luke 10:25-37 Why did Jesus tell His followers to emulate a heretic instead of the thelogically correct Levite?
When you understand that, you'll understand what it is that will bring you salvation.
Let me take us back to my questions:
1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?
Let me guess then. Your answer is Yes?
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
Your answer is Yes?
3. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility?
Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?
4. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?
Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?
5. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?
There. Did I guess you right?
: Michael2012 Thu May 11, 2017 - 13:43:57
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:00:49
: Michael2012 Mon May 08, 2017 - 09:14:00
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.
My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
And your take on the
creation in v.19-21 would be
obviously wrong. Please explain how the creation, other than mankind, could eagerly wait for anything. How does the sun, the moon, and the stars eagerly await the revealing of the sons of God. What on earth could that possibly mean? And just what is the corruption (v.21) that is spoken of there? When iron and oxygen combine to form rust, that is corrosion, that is chemistry. When you eat food and digest it to form the stuff of your body and to provide the energy necessary, that is a chemical corrosion process. Is that corruption?
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:16:14
: Michael2012 Thu May 11, 2017 - 13:43:57
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:00:49
: Michael2012 Mon May 08, 2017 - 09:14:00
: 4WD Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10
: Michael2012 Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.
My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
And your take on the creation in v.19-21 would be obviously wrong. Please explain how the creation, other than mankind, could eagerly wait for anything. How does the sun, the moon, and the stars eagerly await the revealing of the sons of God. What on earth could that possibly mean? And just what is the corruption (v.21) that is spoken of there? When iron and oxygen combine to form rust, that is corrosion, that is chemistry. When you eat food and digest it to form the stuff of your body and to provide the energy necessary, that is a chemical corrosion process. Is that corruption?
Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance. The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.
Paul, with the passage, imparts to us, in like sense as he had in Rom. 1, that even the creation speaks out and testify of the invisible things of God, but here even about the blessed hope of redemption of the sons of God, as by that, it too will be delivered from its bondage to corruption and freed from its subjection to futility. This he have done so, in connection to the sufferings of the children of in the present time, that such are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be soon revealed in them.
Reading the passage, what is clear about creation is that it was subjected to futility and is in bondage to corruption. And that it will be set free and be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. The questions really are:
What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?
And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility?
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:
"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:29:13
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?
And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility?
The futility is the condemnation,due to trespasses and sins, to eternity apart from God i.e, in Hell.
{quote]
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:
"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."
Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
How do I explain it? Quite simply, you are wrong. Being anxious for anything is not something that any other than mankind can do. The fall of Adam has no effect on our physical being or our spiritual being. And that is not my problem. That you do not understand that is your problem.
: The Barbarian Fri May 12, 2017 - 00:04:24
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?
Why would it matter? He chose to do this world over a long period of time. What if He does it different next time? Should we be offended?
Will this require evolution
Evolution is part of nature. And the world to come is not natural. It's a mistake to impose what you know about this world on the world to come.
Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
I don't think that your misunderstandings about what we believe are holding you back as much as your inability to clearly explain what you believe.
In other words, your not going to answer the questions. The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe. The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God, go much deeper and cause far more damage to the faith, than you are willing admit or investigate in depth.
People of the World do not believe Matthew 18:3, AMO.
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:54:22
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:29:13
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?
And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility?
The futility is the condemnation,due to trespasses and sins, to eternity apart from God i.e, in Hell.
Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:54:22
: 4WD Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:
"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."
Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
How do I explain it? Quite simply, you are wrong. Being anxious for anything is not something that any other than mankind can do. The fall of Adam has no effect on our physical being or our spiritual being. And that is not my problem. That you do not understand that is your problem.
So all you have for a refutation is the thought that other than mankind, being anxious for anything is not possible with anything else.
Well then, so goes the passage with your take of creation as being mankind.
By the way, do you know about a figure of speech in which an inanimate object or abstract idea is represented as animated, or endowed with personality? This is somewhat what Paul used in that passage regarding creation. Else, if that is not the case, and take it to be plain and literal, so then will the passage be rendered absurd, ridiculous and false.
I have explained this in reply#153, which I think you have ignored. Here it is:
Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance. The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.
Paul, with the passage, imparts to us, in like sense as he had in Rom. 1, that even the creation speaks out and testify of the invisible things of God, but here even about the blessed hope of redemption of the sons of God, as by that, it too will be delivered from its bondage to corruption and freed from its subjection to futility. This he have done so, in connection to the sufferings of the children of in the present time, that such are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be soon revealed in them.
: The Barbarian Thu May 11, 2017 - 12:17:38
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
Who says so and how would you know?
In other words, your not going to answer the questions.
Rather, you don't like the answers. The amount of time God used in this world to create things has nothing at all to do with the next. We live in a world created in time, but that's not what you have in eternity.
The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.
I don't wish to be unkind, but it seems to me that if you just accepted His word as it is, you'd have no problem understanding how the physical universe fits into His will.
The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God
I accept it precisely because I accept the word of God first. My one objection to YE creationism, is that it puts one more obstacle between unbelievers and God. If they see someone preaching that they must believe something demonstrably false, then they walk away. Now, it's true that there are many YE creationists who admit that evolution/creationism has no bearing on one's salvation, and that both views are consistent with Christian belief. If this is your view, then you do no damage to the faith.
If you insist that only YE is acceptable for salvation, then you are opposing God's desire that no man be lost.
And if so, you're not serving God.
Think about it, at least.
Barbarian agrees:
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
Who says so and how would you know?
Heaven is such that those who achieve it, have absolute subordination of their bodies (yes, we will have bodies) to their spirits. As Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, with a physical body he invited his disciples to examine for themselves, yet was able to move through a wall with that same body, so we will have the same subtility.
John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. ... [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
Our bodies clearly don't have that kind of ability now. But in the next world, they shall.
God constantly contrasts Heaven and Earth as two entirely different places. Yes, Heaven is a state of being, but it is also a place. If one has a body, then one has a location, hence a place.
It will not be like anything we have ever encountered; it will be an entirely different state and existence:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
So no one in this world has ever encountered anything remotely like it.
1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
: The Barbarian Fri May 12, 2017 - 17:40:10
Barbarian agrees:
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
Who says so and how would you know?
Heaven is such that those who achieve it, have absolute subordination of their bodies (yes, we will have bodies) to their spirits. As Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, with a physical body he invited his disciples to examine for themselves, yet was able to move through a wall with that same body, so we will have the same subtility.
John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. ... [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
Our bodies clearly don't have that kind of ability now. But in the next world, they shall.
God constantly contrasts Heaven and Earth as two entirely different places. Yes, Heaven is a state of being, but it is also a place. If one has a body, then one has a location, hence a place.
It will not be like anything we have ever encountered; it will be an entirely different state and existence:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
So no one in this world has ever encountered anything remotely like it.
1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
Who says there is no nature in heaven?
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 11:10:54Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting. That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense. How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God? The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary. It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator. The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.
Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view. I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite. But perhaps that is just me.
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 07:09:39
: Michael2012 Fri May 12, 2017 - 11:10:54Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting. That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense. How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God? The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary. It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator. The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.
Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view. I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite. But perhaps that is just me.
Easy. First, I don't get to choose what scriptures says 4WD.
Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.
4WD: <<Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view. I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite. But perhaps that is just me.>>
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth. All these were not God's intention for man, and the rest of creation. Will I complain to God that He had to subject the creation as He had only because Adam sinned? Perhaps, you'd say you see no glory to God expressed in this. Now, Adam and Eve multiplied, until the generation of Noah. In Noah's time, men were so wicked that God destroyed them all, except Noah, who found grace from God, and those in the ark with him. But, not only was man destroyed, but literally, the rest of creation. Will I again complain to God that He had to destroy even the rest of creation, because of wicked man? And perhaps again, you'd say you see no glory to God expressed in this. Well, you can say that, as you do. But, that is what the just and righteous God did.
And so, you are right in saying "But perhaps that is just me".
So, if you find my view as something unacceptable to you, for the reasons you here expressed, then perhaps, you can look into your view that creation there in Rom. 8:19-23 refers to mankind, and tell us what it makes of the passage as saying, and if it does not stand contrary to other truths in scriptures. And I already have shown you what it makes of the passage. And it makes it false. If you say it does not make it false, please show and explain it to us then. I'd be happy to know, for up till now, you have evaded in addressing it.
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
It's proof that God can set aside the laws by which this world works, when He wishes to do so. It's His creation, of course He can. But that just puts a finer point in it; nature will never be what Heaven is.
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 08:40:16Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.
What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.
What curse of the ground are you talking about? The thorns and thistles? What curse of the earth are you talking about?
You seem always to read into Scripture was is not there -- on just about every topic on which you post.
: The Barbarian Sat May 13, 2017 - 09:01:07
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
It's proof that God can set aside the laws by which this world works, when He wishes to do so. It's His creation, of course He can. But that just puts a finer point in it; nature will never be what Heaven is.
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 09:18:23
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 08:40:16Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.
What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.
What curse of the ground are you talking about? The thorns and thistles? What curse of the earth are you talking about?
You seem always to read into Scripture was is not there -- on just about every topic on which you post.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
If you just read Gen. 1-2, how the ground or the earth is said to bring forth all that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food, before it was cursed. Because of Adam's sin, God cursed the ground, that it bring forth thorns and thistles. And that for the sake of Adam. Look around what has become of the earth today, and that, as it was for Adam when he sinned, all for the sake of man because man sinned.
With regards every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, in the beginning, did God not given every green herb for meat? And because of the sins of man, were they not cursed? Were they not later been made food for man, killed and eaten? Look around, what has become of them?
Can't you see this corruption that is upon creation because of sin, of sinful man? Can't you see creation is under bondage to this? Can't you the futility that they have been subjected to? If you don't, then perhaps you need to look again.
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
That wasn't my claim. I'm pointing out that the physical universe is not heaven, and that things work differently there.
We are all human beings
flesh and bones
All I can say is.,.,,...,......,...,.,...,
Love the stranger as thyself (:- ::announcment::
: The Barbarian Fri May 12, 2017 - 17:18:14
In other words, your not going to answer the questions.
Rather, you don't like the answers. The amount of time God used in this world to create things has nothing at all to do with the next. We live in a world created in time, but that's not what you have in eternity.
The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.
I don't wish to be unkind, but it seems to me that if you just accepted His word as it is, you'd have no problem understanding how the physical universe fits into His will.
The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God
I accept it precisely because I accept the word of God first. My one objection to YE creationism, is that it puts one more obstacle between unbelievers and God. If they see someone preaching that they must believe something demonstrably false, then they walk away. Now, it's true that there are many YE creationists who admit that evolution/creationism has no bearing on one's salvation, and that both views are consistent with Christian belief. If this is your view, then you do no damage to the faith.
If you insist that only YE is acceptable for salvation, then you are opposing God's desire that no man be lost.
And if so, you're not serving God.
Think about it, at least.
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost. This will be their own doing, not God's.
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.
Fortunately, you're wrong about this. There is absolutely nothing that says the way you think God created the diversity of life matters to your salvation. It's a modern doctrine, it's not a Biblical doctrine, and it's false. I'm not trying to be unkind. I really am not. But this is a doctrine that is damaging to the church and to Christian faith.
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.
Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
: The Barbarian Sat May 13, 2017 - 14:58:29
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
That wasn't my claim. I'm pointing out that the physical universe is not heaven, and that things work differently there.
What you said is that the creation of heaven is far beyond nature, so evolution cannot apply.
You also say that the creation of our universe is not far beyond nature, so evolution does apply.
What exactly is the difference between creation one universe versus the other?
In both cases we are talking about a supernatural event...creation.
For one scenario, the creation of heaven, you claim science cannot explain it because it is supernatural.
For the other scenario, the creation of our universe which equally is a supernatural event, you insist science is able to explain.
: The Barbarian Sat May 13, 2017 - 21:54:48
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.
Fortunately, you're wrong about this. There is absolutely nothing that says the way you think God created the diversity of life matters to your salvation. It's a modern doctrine, it's not a Biblical doctrine, and it's false. I'm not trying to be unkind. I really am not. But this is a doctrine that is damaging to the church and to Christian faith.
2 Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 22:38:06
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
Of course it is the issue. It debunks any notion of original sin.
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.
Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
The primary matter in all of this is the correct translation of the Greek word
"ktisis". And the simple truth is that you have chosen the wrong one. And in doing so you have a completely wrong interpretation.
All I can say is.,.,,...,......,...,.,...,
Love the stranger as thyself (:- ::announcment::
You have it right, my friend.
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
: 4WD Sun May 14, 2017 - 06:54:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 22:38:06
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
Of course it is the issue. It debunks any notion of original sin.
The issue in this segment is if what I said that
"the fall of Adam brought sin into the world" is in the Bible. And it is. But then you put up another issue instead, that
"What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience." is in the Bible. And so, I said , that is not the issue.
Anyway, on the issue you injected, here's my comment. So, what is it that you say was the result of Adam's disobedience that was completely undone by Jesus' obedience?
: 4WD Sun May 14, 2017 - 06:54:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 22:38:06
: 4WD Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35
: Michael2012 Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.
Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
The primary matter in all of this is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis". And the simple truth is that you have chosen the wrong one. And in doing so you have a completely wrong interpretation.
And what is the correct translation of the Greek word
"ktisis" according to you?
: Michael2012 Sun May 14, 2017 - 11:57:48
And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?
According to Strong's:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
ktis'-is
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.
According to Thayer:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
Thayer Definition:
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
So then the correct translation must be from the context and there is no context that would suggest that the universe is at all intended in Romans 8. Clearly it is mankind that has been subjected to futility. It is mankind that is held in the bondage of sin and corruption.
: 4WD Sun May 14, 2017 - 12:40:02
: Michael2012 Sun May 14, 2017 - 11:57:48
And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?
According to Strong's:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
ktis'-is
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.
According to Thayer:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
Thayer Definition:
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
So then the correct translation must be from the context and there is no context that would suggest that the universe is at all intended in Romans 8. Clearly it is mankind that has been subjected to futility. It is mankind that is held in the bondage of sin and corruption.
Are you saying here that the correct English translation of the Greek word "ktisis" is mankind? I don't see that anywhere in the references you posted.
Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:
Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.
Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?
Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.
Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
: Michael2012 Sun May 14, 2017 - 15:27:19Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:
Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-life
In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.
Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
We are all subjected to futility. That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Interesting question. Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether
ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?
Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.
Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Again the problem you raise is not rectified if
ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation". However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that
ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man. I believe Paul is making the case that even we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.
Now I would ask you a question.
Q: If the Greek word
ktisis is rendered as the whole of creation, could you describe the corruption and the bondage to that corruption that you see in the universe in the whole of the natural world other than the corruption of man that arises from man's trespasses and sins. What corruption and bondage to that corruption to you see in the sun? In the moon? In the whole of the Milky Way galaxie? In the cosmological universe?
: RB Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 04:18:14
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 17, 2017 - 12:25:42I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth! Hebrews 11:3~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!
By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God. Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution, this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes, by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.
AMEN!
: Michael2012 Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 04:56:42
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Answer: Jesus Christ.
And AMEN again!
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 07:52:22
: Michael2012 Sun May 14, 2017 - 15:27:19Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:
Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-lifeIn v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.
Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
We are all subjected to futility. That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.
A hyperbole? Well, I don't see the reason why Paul needed to use a hyperbole regarding this, more so that such hyperbole is improper since such is an exaggeration to the point of suggesting a lie. And no atheist waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
I find the idea that mankind is subjected to futility, and that not willingly, to be inconsistent with the truth in scriptures. Who subjected mankind then to futility against mankind's will? And for what purpose?
Also, try to bring now what verses 19 and 20 in the context of what Paul was trying to point out to whom he writes to.
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 07:52:22
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Interesting question. Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].
It seems apparent that is a predicament to you. This is not so, in my take of the "creation" in the passage, which I take as all creation except mankind.
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 07:52:22
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?
Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.
Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Again the problem you raise is not rectified if ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation". However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man. I believe Paul is making the case that eyven we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.
In my take of what "creation" is in the passage, there is not a problem as there is in your take of it as "mankind". This verse is exactly what qualified and defined the "creation" spoken of in verses 19-22. And that is why, my take of "creation" in the passage is that it refers to all creation except mankind.
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 07:52:22
Now I would ask you a question.
Q: If the Greek word ktisis is rendered as the whole of creation, could you describe the corruption and the bondage to that corruption that you see in the universe in the whole of the natural world other than the corruption of man that arises from man's trespasses and sins. What corruption and bondage to that corruption to you see in the sun? In the moon? In the whole of the Milky Way galaxie? In the cosmological universe?
The "ktisis" is correctly translated in the English as "creation". Now, as to whether it refers to the whole creation or not is defined by context.
With regards your question, please refer to repiy#163 & #169.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
: RB Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 04:18:14
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Ecc_1:5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.Quite clearly from that verse the sun must revolve around the earth. So the Bible says, so the truth it is.
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:59:33
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 13:02:00
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:59:33
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?
4WD, look around you, anywhere you are and watch the World News. Things are not maintaining nor are things getting better.
4WD, look around you, anywhere you are and watch the World News. Things are not maintaining nor are things getting better.
Humans, indeed are corrupt. His world is, as He said, "very good."
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 19:11:55
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 13:02:00
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:59:33
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
Unlike heaven which will be eternal and not subject to corruption because there is no sin.
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
No one actually knows that. You see, the sum of all the energy in the universe is equal to zero. Always has been, from all indications. And yet here we are, plants grow, babies are born, and the world works as He intends.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
You don't know that. God may leave it here. Or He might just end it. Doesn't matter. Or He might bring about an infinity of universes. There's no point in imagining these things, because He hasn't told us. Let us be humble and listen to what He says, without adding things.
: The Barbarian Mon May 15, 2017 - 23:28:56
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
No one actually knows that. You see, the sum of all the energy in the universe is equal to zero. Always has been, from all indications.
Next to the Evolution Theory yet another scientific hypothesis that has not been proven correct.
: AVZ Mon May 15, 2017 - 23:16:08
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 19:11:55
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 13:02:00
: 4WD Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:59:33
: Michael2012 Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
Unlike heaven which will be eternal and not subject to corruption because there is no sin.
You think entropy is the result of Adam's sin??? rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Next to the Evolution Theory yet another scientific hypothesis that has not been proven correct.
Which of Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory have been shown to be false?
Most people who think they hate science don't really understand it very well.
Conclusions
http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood (http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood)
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God' natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.
Just another sign, that millions of years theories, are just that, theories. Pure science has observed that petrification can and does happen rapidly. Theoretical science has not and cannot observe it taking millions of years.
http://www.icr.org/fossilization (http://www.icr.org/fossilization)
Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic BurialBeveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).
Same deal. Fossilization itself requires for the most part rapid burial and removal from the decaying effects of natural surroundings. All indicative of major cataclysmic events, such as a world wide flood. Nevertheless, theoretical science opts for fossilization over the course of millions of years. Which is again, unobservable, of course.
It has also been proved that coal and oil can be formed rapidly under the right conditions, such as a cataclysmic flood producing extreme pressures and heat over massive areas. Yet theoretical science opts for countless millions of years, unobservable of course.
Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.
They merely show strata have been eroded after being formed and solidified. This demonstrates that there was not a single worldwide flood.
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization.
Which is why animal fossils are normally found where sedimentation was relatively rapid. The Karoo formation, formerly a river delta, has billions of vertebrate fossils.
The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.
Only if you think the conditions today are "extraordinary." Those fossils are continuing to be formed right now.
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.
Not so rapid. Some are forming near my home when a forested area was flooded decades ago by a dam. The trees are still upright, very gradually being buried by layers of sediment. They will, if uplift and erosion does not occur, eventually form polystrate fossils.
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation
Rigor mortis takes a while. About six hours to complete.
—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).
No, that's wrong. The pulled-back head found in so many fossils of dinosaurs and birds is caused by an interesting process, that goes on for a long time after death:
In a paper published last month in the journal Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, Achim G. Reisdorf of the University of Basel in Switzerland writes that the trouble with the death-throe hypothesis is that carcasses are flexible. To fossilize in the traumatic death position, a carcass would have to be quickly buried in the exact spot where it died, without any transportation.
But that is unlikely, Mr. Reisdorf wrote. Many of the dinosaurs found in opisthotonic posture are land animals that fell into sediment at the bottom of bodies of water, and probably had to settle before reaching their final resting place.
Mr. Reisdorf thought water might be the key. So he and a colleague, Dr. Michael Wuttke, decided to try some kitchen science. They bought fresh chicken necks from a butcher and plunged them into water buckets.
Immediately, the necks bent backward by 90 degrees. After three months and significant rotting, they had twisted further backward — to 140 degrees.
These results were verified at Brigham Young University by a paleontologist, Brooks B. Britt, and an undergraduate student, Alicia Cutler.
"When you hold a carcass in your hand, it's like a limp rag, you can move it anywhere," Dr. Britt said. "But as soon as we put the first dead chicken in the water, we realized, 'Holy smokes, this is amazing.' The head immediately curved backwards."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/archaeopteryx-fossils-appear-twisted-but-not-because-of-agony.html?mcubz=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/archaeopteryx-fossils-appear-twisted-but-not-because-of-agony.html?mcubz=1)
So this is actually strong evidence against sudden burial.
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God' natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.
I have been told this many times, but each time I ask for a checkable source that shows wood can be petrified quickly to resemble the petrified wood we see in nature, no one knows where this evidence can be found.
What do you have?
http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-wood-petrify/ (http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-wood-petrify/)
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05113.htm (http://www.grisda.org/origins/05113.htm)
Petrified wood is possibly the fossil type with which most people have greatest familiarity. One of the most frequently expressed questions among a group visiting a petrified wood exposure is "How rapidly does petrification occur?" The answers to such questions have often expressed speculation, but seldom have been based on dependable data.
Anne C. Sigleo in a paper entitled "Organic geochemistry of silicified wood, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona" that appears in the September 1978 issue of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (vol. 42, pp. 1397-1405) demonstrates that silica mineralization is an impermeation or void-filling process in which mineral matter is deposited in cracks, openings between cells, and spaces left by cell fluids. This process takes place while the wood is relatively intact. Consequently petrified wood preserves the original pattern of cell structure, and often contains carbon and organic compounds. For noncarbonaceous petrified wood the organic material was degraded and removed subsequent to mineralization. The most probable mechanism for wood silification as proposed by Dr. Sigleo is hydrogen bonding between silicic acid [Si(OH)4] and the hydroxyl functional groups in cellulose.
Silica mineralization evidently takes place within the chemical (impurity concentration) and pH (acidity-alkalinity) range of most surface waters. Dr. Sigleo cites experiments which indicate that silica deposits at the rate of 0.1 to 4.0 millimeters per year on wood immersed in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (1); fresh twigs will partially silicify within 24 hours at room temperature in a sodium metasilicate solution at concentrations of 5-10 parts per thousand (2); fresh wood can be silicified within a year by alternate immersion in water and ethyl silicate (3). The latter process does not represent naturally occurring conditions. Ethyl silicate is used because in the presence of water it decomposes and releases a high concentration of monomolecular silicific acid within the wood tissue. Also of interest but not mentioned by Sigleo is the observation that plant tissue silicifies after several years of immersion in jars of water containing 750 parts per million of silica (4).
These examples provide some possibilities regarding the formation of petrified wood and suggest that wood could become petrified within a few years if it remained saturated with water that had percolated through a layer of fresh volcanic ash.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/petrified.html#2 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/petrified.html#2)
In the abstract of the article:
It might be noted here that some of the thoughts expressed on the topic of petrification are admittedly speculative... It would be desirable to understand further the actual nature of the chemical interaction of silicia(sic) in solution with wood components and their derivatives, not just for the petrification problem alone, but for the role plant-derived organic matter has in many geologic and soil processes of both academic and economic interest.
Moreover, the author does not claim that the process using man-made chemicals, produces fossilized wood. Since buried wood is highly unlikely to come into contact with concentrated ethyl silicate, the author was right to call the work "speculative."
This is fossilized wood:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Petrified_wood_closeup_2.jpg)
Would you mind showing me what creationists have been able to make in the lab?
A while back, I asked the most relevant question in this discussion;
Which of Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory have been shown to be false?
I wish someone would answer it.
Seems like there is a pretty common thread concerning dinosaur demise. Of course there is no way they all died in the biblical flood. All emphasis in the following is mine.
http://creation.com/geology-documents-dinosaurs-fleeing-noahs-flood (http://creation.com/geology-documents-dinosaurs-fleeing-noahs-flood)
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1771 (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1771)
THE GLOBAL FLOOD
One theory pertaining to dinosaur extinction fits the available data better than any other proposed explanation: the global Flood of Noah's day. Since one of the major facts of dinosaur destruction is that most major dinosaur fossil graveyards were caused by huge amounts of water, the theory that most dinosaurs died during the worldwide Flood is the best explanation for the mass destruction of dinosaurs.
GRAVEYARDS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOODING
The Dinosaur National Monument fossil quarry is one of the largest fossil repositories in the world, where over 1,600 fossilized dinosaur bones are buried ("Dinosaur National Monument," 2004). Built around the major rock face that contains the fossils is a museum, which offers interesting information about the early discovery of the site in 1909. Like almost every federally funded dinosaur exhibit, the Dinosaur National Monument also propagates the standard evolutionary refrain that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. One intriguing thing about this monument is its explanation regarding the cause of its huge fossil graveyard. The wall opposite the rock face contains a large painted mural. This mural shows various dinosaurs wading through deep water. Under the mural, a placard reads: "After a seasonal flood: This scene of 145 million years ago is based on clues found in the rock face behind you. Carcasses brought downstream by the fast-moving, muddy water were washed onto a sandbar. Some were buried completely by tons of sand—their bones preserved in a nearly perfect state" (emp. added).
Interesting, is it not, that such a huge fossil graveyard is said to have occurred because of a "seasonal flood"? Further research has shown that many fossil finds are explained using a seasonal, regional, or flash-flood scenario. In November 1999, University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno uncovered a 65-foot-long dinosaur called Jabaria. This skeleton was almost 95% complete. What was the explanation for its burial? "It looks as though the dinosaurs may have been caught in an ancient flash flood and buried quickly" ("Dinosaur Articles...," 1999, emp. added). Robert Sanders, in an article copyrighted by the University of California, described a huge pterosaur graveyard by noting: "The fossil bones were found strewn throughout an ancient flood deposit in Chile's Atacama desert, suggesting that they were animals or corpses caught up in a flood perhaps 110 million years ago at the beginning of the Cretaceous period" (1995, emp. added).
A BBC article discussing the series "Walking with Dinosaurs," explains that much of the information for the first episode of the series came from a fossil find called the Ghost Ranch, located near Abaquiu, New Mexico. The article describes this site as one of the richest fossil finds in the world. Why were so many dinosaurs buried suddenly? "Palaeontologists believe that the collection of fossils was the result of a mass death around a dwindling water resource during a drought. Before the bodies of the animals were eaten by scavengers, a flash flood buried them in muddy sediments where they were preserved" ("Dig Deeper," n.d., emp. added).
In the Fall of 2007, a massive fossil bed was uncovered in an area known as Lo Hueco, in Spain. The fossil bed contained at least 8,000 fossils, and bones from an estimated 100 Titanosauruses as well as several other dinosaur species (Catan, 2007). What caused such massive burial? Fernando Escasco, a paleontologist at Cuenca's science museum, said that the animals were probably washed into the fossil bed by "heavy flooding" (De Elvira, 2007, emp. added).
THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY
How interesting to learn that evolutionists explain many of the largest dinosaur graveyards in the world as having been caused by a flood (though they are quick to include words such as "seasonal," "flash," "regional," and the like). It is important to recognize that any other theory of massive dinosaur destruction besides the global Flood of Noah's day, must still somehow propose that great amounts of water directly caused many of the dinosaur graveyards around the world. In truth, the global Flood of Noah's day (as recorded in Genesis 6-8) provides an excellent explanation for many (if not all) such graveyards around the world. The Bible explains that "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights" (Genesis 7:11-12). Furthermore, "all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered" (Genesis 7:19, emp. added). During that year-long Flood, countless thousands of dinosaurs would have drowned and been buried quickly in muddy deposits around the world. It is reasonable to conclude that these dinosaur burial grounds became the well-known fossilized graveyards scientists have discovered around the world.
http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-herd-buried-in-noahs-flood-in-inner-mongolia-china (http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-herd-buried-in-noahs-flood-in-inner-mongolia-china)
http://nmstatefossil.org/item/18 (http://nmstatefossil.org/item/18)
Colbert suggested the animals might have been poisoned, and the bodies of the dead animals swept away by a flash flood, to congregate in a low spot and be quickly buried in mud.
https://phys.org/news/2011-11-ancient-birds-died.html (https://phys.org/news/2011-11-ancient-birds-died.html)
Findings show ancient birds died in flash flood
The discovery was made in the Sebes area of Transylvania, Romania and includes a large collection of bird fossils and eggs, both partial and whole, trapped within the limestone. It is believed that this colony of birds was wiped out when a flash flood hit the area some 100 million years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059754/Silence-enantiornithines-Fossils-flood-wiped-colony-dinosaur-era-birds.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059754/Silence-enantiornithines-Fossils-flood-wiped-colony-dinosaur-era-birds.html)
Silence of the enantiornithines: Fossils show flood wiped out colony of dinosaur-era birds
http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_epg2.asp (http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_epg2.asp)
Notes: Discovered in large numbers in Alberta, Canada, Eucentrosaurus is one of the best-known ceratopsians. Apparently a herd of these dinosaurs died all at once, perhaps caught in a flash flood. Smaller than Triceratops, Eucentrosaurus had a forward-curving 18-inch (46-cm) nasal horn and a pair of small horns above its eyes. Skin casts exist that show Eucentrosaurus to possess a knobby skin with hexagonal or pentagonal bumps set close together.
http://www.ky3.com/content/news/Local-dinosaur-bone-hunters-discovering-new-fossils--425936763.html (http://www.ky3.com/content/news/Local-dinosaur-bone-hunters-discovering-new-fossils--425936763.html)
The scientific name for the creatures behind the bones Matt mentioned; a Hadrosaur. They may have died a cruel death.
Matt explains, "These are the duck-billed dinosaurs. This bone bed... we're still trying to figure out the geology behind it. But, it looks like a herd of dinosaurs got swept away in a flash flood."
http://news.yale.edu/2014/09/10/thick-skinned-dinosaur-gets-last-laugh (http://news.yale.edu/2014/09/10/thick-skinned-dinosaur-gets-last-laugh)
Other explanations attributed the frequent occurrence of hadrosaur skin in the fossil record to hadrosaurs' lifestyle — they tended to live (and die) along rivers, where flash flooding could quickly bury them in alluvial sediments, protecting the corpse from scavengers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/dinosaur-museum-in-small-town-alberta-hopes-to-hit-the-big-time-1.3211366 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/dinosaur-museum-in-small-town-alberta-hopes-to-hit-the-big-time-1.3211366)
Seventy-five million years ago, tiny Pipestone Creek was a torrent in a land of active volcanoes and lumbering dinosaurs. During a flash flood thousands of the creatures were swept down river, their carcasses collecting at a bend in the river. The fossils grew into the landscape until Lakusta got curious and went out one day with a shovel.
http://careyjaneclark.com/thursday-killed-dinosaurs/ (http://careyjaneclark.com/thursday-killed-dinosaurs/)
In fact, taking a tour through the Royal Tyrell museum in Drumheller, Alberta (a must-see!), you will notice that over and over again, they say things like "This dinosaur drowned in a flood." "This herd of dinosaurs were killed trying to cross a raging river." "This dinosaur died in a flash flood."
https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2010/02/10/4456894.html (https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2010/02/10/4456894.html)
Body fossils such as dinosaur bones, can be transported a long way from the area in which the animal lived and died. For example, a dinosaur that died inland could be washed into a river as the result of a flash flood and the carcase carried out to sea, where eventually it sank. This could result in the preservation and fossilisation of a land living animal in marine deposits, as in the case of the Dorset (England), Scelidosaurus. Trace fossils on the other hand, preserve evidence of the activity of animals, their tracks, trails, burrows all being preserved as part of the fossil record.
https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/velociraptors-dog-sized-cousin-with-trademark-sickle-claws-unearthed-in-canada/ (https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/velociraptors-dog-sized-cousin-with-trademark-sickle-claws-unearthed-in-canada/)
The Pipestone Creek bonebed has yielded thousands of fossil finds, most of them belonging to a large horned dinosaur called Pachyrhinosaurus. It's thought that a huge herd of these animals died in a flash flood at this site millions of years ago, leaving a graveyard of jumbled remains.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/7961753/Fires-and-floods-make-Isle-of-Wight-rich-source-of-dinosaur-remains.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/7961753/Fires-and-floods-make-Isle-of-Wight-rich-source-of-dinosaur-remains.html)
Dr Sweetman said: ''When a fire was rapidly followed by an intense flood, a snapshot of life on the Isle of Wight 130 million years ago was taken and preserved for us to see today, making the Isle of Wight one of the most important dinosaur sites in the world.
https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/03/11/the-carnegie-quarry-diaspora/ (https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/03/11/the-carnegie-quarry-diaspora/)
About 150 million years ago, a severe drought ravaged the western interior of North America. In eastern Utah, malnourished dinosaurs gathered near a dwindling river. Unwilling or unable to leave the water source, they eventually died of thirst or disease. When rain finally returned to the region, three or four successive flash floods washed dozens of animal carcasses into a relatively small depositional area to the southeast. Today, this site is known as the Carnegie Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, and it is one of the most incredible fossil sites in the world.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/a-raja-a-jain-a-tagore-meet-desi-dinosaurs-that-once-roamed-india-s-plains/story-EEfvnpOJjsoJUlV0vmjjKP.html (http://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/a-raja-a-jain-a-tagore-meet-desi-dinosaurs-that-once-roamed-india-s-plains/story-EEfvnpOJjsoJUlV0vmjjKP.html)
The dinosaurs would have taken big strides – they certainly had the legs for it – but they didn't reach their destination. Something, possibly a flash flood, struck mid-way, uprooting trees and killing everything in its path. The herd died together, decomposing quietly, their skeletons falling apart as layers of earth began to cover them.
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 14:17:18
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta. There are many other such examples. No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.
massive erosion
Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material. But only by processes that never occur in nature. So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood. "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood. And so on.
How would a year-long flood make these?
(http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg)
Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high. So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.
How do you think the river did this in a year?
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 15:20:37
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 14:17:18
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Was Peter ignorant of the truth you now posses, or are you one of the scoffers described above. Do you deny the flood, and future judgement by fire?
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
How about that, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed the story you know to be untrue. Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't this mean you know more and better than God? Is your testimony above that of the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not your God and Savior? How is it, you know more and better than He whom your life completely depends upon?
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:11:51
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta. There are many other such examples. No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.
massive erosion
Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material. But only by processes that never occur in nature. So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood. "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood. And so on.
How would a year-long flood make these?
(http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg)
Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high. So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.
How do you think the river did this in a year?
You are willingly ignorant of scripture, and real science. A global flood moving unimaginable masses of water could cut through solid rock, even steel reinforced concrete with ease. Its called cavitation.
https://www.icr.org/article/6920 (https://www.icr.org/article/6920)
The even layers of strata observed all over the world are evidence of rapid layering and formation, not layers built up slowly over millions of years that would have obvious signs of severe erosion and depressions caused by the same.
As for all your arguments concerning floods, much of what you are describing would also result from the major flood, and subsequent floods and or evacuations over time as a result of the same. Your millions of years simply are not necessary for explanation, or the best or most scientific explanation available. You simply choose the desires of your own imagination for your science, rather than the sure testimony of God's word. Go tell someone else the bible does not teach a global flood. All such is willing ignorance of God's word as far as I am concerned.
You are willingly ignorant of scripture,
I've spent a lifetime studying it.
and real science.
I teach real science.
A global flood moving unimaginable masses of water could cut through solid rock, even steel reinforced concrete with ease. Its called cavitation.
You'll never get the hairpin turns you see in those entrenched meanders that way. It would just blast right through those walls. The only way to make those kinds of turns is by slow, gradual erosion during periods of uplift.
The even layers of strata observed all over the world are evidence of rapid layering and formation, not layers built up slowly over millions of years that would have obvious signs of severe erosion and depressions caused by the same.
But they mostly aren't even. You see tilting, bending, erosion and gradual change. Many of these show deserts and forests that appeared and then went away between layers of what the ICR imagines to be "flood deposits." How did a desert appear in the middle of a great worldwide flood?
As for all your arguments concerning floods, much of what you are describing would also result from the major flood
No. For example you wouldn't see those meanders, or deserts in the middle of the layers, if that were true.
Your millions of years simply are not necessary for explanation,
As you learned, those meanders could form in no other way. You simply choose the desires of your own imagination for your belief, rather than the evidence. The Bible does not say that there was a global flood. That is man's addition to His word.
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:36:00
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 15:20:37
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 14:17:18
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.
This is the problem. Far too often I see YEC referring to published scientific data as "scoffing at scripture" when that simply isn't the case, in fact most pay very little credence to religions of any sort and focus primarily on the observable data that is all around us. Pitting science against God seems to be the goal of YEC, science is not akin to a conspiracy theory against God.
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:36:00
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 15:20:37
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 14:17:18
: Alan Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
: Amo Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Was Peter ignorant of the truth you now posses, or are you one of the scoffers described above. Do you deny the flood, and future judgement by fire?
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
How about that, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed the story you know to be untrue. Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't this mean you know more and better than God? Is your testimony above that of the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not your God and Savior? How is it, you know more and better than He whom your life completely depends upon?
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:11:51
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta. There are many other such examples. No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.
massive erosion
Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material. But only by processes that never occur in nature. So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood. "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood. And so on.
How would a year-long flood make these?
(http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg)
Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high. So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.
How do you think the river did this in a year?
I know not of the god you worship but the God of Creation, my LORD, my God can make anything look as He wishes it to appear and no man can tell the difference. (2Thes 2:11)
I know not of the god you worship
He's the Creator, who made a covenant with Abraham. He's a good one to know. Give Him a call.
but the God of Creation, my LORD, my God can make anything look as He wishes it to appear and no man can tell the difference.
If you are willing to call in a non-scriptural miracle whenever your theology runs into trouble, then any story is equally possible.
Not a good practice, I think.
: th1b.taylor Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 17:19:41
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
: Alan Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 06:58:41
: th1b.taylor Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 17:19:41
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
Alan,
Before that question can be answered accurately, it may be necessary to identify the recipient.
Just saying.
Blessings.
: geronimo Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 07:55:13
: Alan Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 06:58:41
: th1b.taylor Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 17:19:41
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
Alan,
Before that question can be answered accurately, it may be necessary to identify the recipient.
Just saying.
Blessings.
Please feel free to engage, this is just open discussion.
All emphasis in the excerpts provided is mine. The links to the articles the excerpts were taken from are provided above the same.
https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html (https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html)
Thousands die in flood
Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.
The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.
"The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns."
The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/there-evidence-flood-was-global (http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/there-evidence-flood-was-global)
5. Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation. Dinosaur National Monument in Utah has a visitor's display where numerous dinosaurs are exposed. Agate Fossil Beds National Monument is a good places to see numerous fossil mammals jumbled together. Other parts of the world also illustrate fossil graveyards. The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4). The Messel site near Frankfort, Germany, is also a most unusual collection of animals and plants. These two sites along with others mentioned above reveal the following information: 1. The burial of great quantities of animals together. 2. Rapid burial and excellent preservation. 3. The presence of species now limited to different continents. 4. The position of mammals that suggest death by drowning. Geological processes as seen in the modern world cannot account for such unusual conditions. A world-wide catastrophe involving water is the easiest explanation.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071210-dinosaur-grave_2.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071210-dinosaur-grave_2.html)
The fossil creatures were found grouped together in clay and silt sediments, suggesting a river created the dinosaur graveyard.
"Flooding maybe was responsible for the accumulation of carcasses," Sanz said.
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/ (http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/)
Perhaps the most challenging fossil phenomena for Darwinian apologists to explain are the vast graveyards of animal remains that are found throughout the world. Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3397188/Dinosaur-graveyard-date-moment-mass-extinction-Fossil-bed-suggests-large-numbers-beasts-killed-single-event-65-million-years-ago.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3397188/Dinosaur-graveyard-date-moment-mass-extinction-Fossil-bed-suggests-large-numbers-beasts-killed-single-event-65-million-years-ago.html)
'Dinosaur graveyard' may date back to the time of the mass extinction: Fossil bed behind a New Jersey mall suggests large numbers of creatures were killed as a result of a single event 65 million years ago
At the time of the creatures' death, the region is believed to have been a shallow sea.
The shallow sea would have been teeming with life, more so than on the land, so if a single event hit the region, a large number of prehistoric marine animals would have been affected.
A number of intact remains of large dinosaurs have been found in the same rock layer, thought to have once been the bottom of the sea bed in which they swam. This evidence suggests they died at the same time as a result of an asteroid impact in Mexico (illustrated) and their bodies sunk to the bottom of the shallow sea
This layer was the ancient sea's bottom, 40ft (12 metres) below the surface and potentially holds the bones of dinosaurs that died in the mass extinction.
Palaeontologists think this may be the case because the skeletons of larger animals remain mostly intact, indicating they died at the same time and their bodies settled on the bottom of the sea bed, The New York Times reported.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/t-rex-skull-discovery-tyrannosaurus-head-skeleton-montana-us-hell-creek-a7199676.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/t-rex-skull-discovery-tyrannosaurus-head-skeleton-montana-us-hell-creek-a7199676.html)
They believe it was aged about 15 to 25 when it died, possibly after falling into the river and drowning. It may also have died elsewhere and then been washed into the river by a flash flood.
http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html (http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html)
The Question of Fossils
The Karoo deposit in South Africa - 800 Billion Fossils
These deposits are so immense that even after decades of fossil collecting, bones are still sticking out of the ground. The Karoo formation is a water deposited sediment bed up to 20,000 ft thick. Massive fossil graveyards of dinosaurs exist all over the world. The Morrison beds in North America, (covering thousands of sq. miles), the dinosaur beds in Montana, Alberta, the Dakotas, Colorado, Utah, Africa, Europe and China, etc., etc., contain literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in heaps and mixed with other creatures. Ten thousand Hadrasaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, including all age groups and eggs jumbled together in a mass death. Would this happen under normal, uniform conditions? The answer is No. Think about it, they are all in water deposited sediments! The Buffalo question- Millions of buffalo were slaughtered on the North American plains during the last century, so multiplied thousands of fossil buffalo should be common but are any great buffalo fossil graveyards to be found? No. Their remains were disposed of by the normal ravages of the weather, scavengers, and decomposition. So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and thousands of other species where the bones of these beasts lie entombed in heaps, together with fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?
How to make a "Fossil"
It's well known to scientists that fossils are not made by creatures dieing a natural death. This misconception propagated for decades in school textbooks and museum placards. The reality is fossils are formed catastrophically by quick burial. All that's required is;
1 Quick Burial
2 Water
3 Sediments
Many Fossil beds uniformly contain undersea and terrestrial animals and plants buried together, just as one would expect if deposited as a result of flood. Others mix many types of animals normally not living together. Fossil beds consistently never contain transitional forms, a long standing misconception advanced by evolutionists in the textbooks. Bones are found from widely different sites and lined up to support evolution theory in pick and choose fashion. Despite this effort, 1/2 way forms are absent, just like we see them absent today. I posted this question to one the most prominent Zoologists in the world, Dr. Collin Paterson of the British museum in London and he responded; "my colleges in the tropics tell me the same thing! The conversation started with my comment that no "in-between" types exist in Alaska also. If evolution were true, many, many in-between or "transitional" types should be present. They are not. Anyone ever report a hairless walking chimp in Africa? No! Besides, the DNA and cell mechanism prohibit such development's.
The following quotes are taken from the link below.
http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html (http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html)
"Fossils are an embarrassment to evolutionists" - Dr. Gary Parker PhD.
New Mexico - Human Bones mixed with sloths and camels in Cavern
Bryan, William Alanson; Science, 70:39-41 1929
A cave was discovered by local treasure hunters on the lowers slope of Bishops cap by a Mr. Roscoe Conkling of El Paso in the 1920's. Intrigued by its soft floor, a party was formed and excavations began in the presence of a recognized authority who could witness the potential unearthing of items of importance. Digging down through the layers, animal bones now extinct began to be exposed and removed, then suddenly a human skull cap appeared at the 12 foot level. Further down the sediment layers a hard lens was encountered, and when broken through was found another skull and remains of numerous other animals including a camel nearly 21 feet in depth. The scientist commented that this finding was of national significance, but for one reason or another, it never got into the textbooks.
More Caverns filled with bones World-Wide
Alfrend Rehwinkle in his volume The Flood, 1951 (See Corless Handbook of Geological Enigma's Sourcebook Project 1980 p. 668-9) relates this type of phenomena is not isolated, there being documented discoveries in England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, USA, Russia and Malta of these same deposits. For example in Greece on the Island of Cerigo, there is a place called the "Mountain of Bones" being 1 mile in circumference. In Burgundy France, is found a steep promontory 1000 feet above the valley floor. Looking skyward is a natural fissure filled to the brim with the broken remains of bears, foxes, wolves, horses, oxen and other animals. Such a deposit was surely made by waters passing over the top of the edifice, these parts settling to fill the crevasse. Similar deposits exist in the British Isles and Sicily, the latter where more than 20 tons of bones were mined out for commercial purposes. On Gibraltar, fissures in number reach over one thousand feet high, full of animal bones, and in one place, claimed human artifacts. Near Odessa, Russia, a cavern was found full of animals such as cat, hyena, horses, boars, mammoth, rhinoceros, deer and smaller animals such as rodents, hares, martens, otter, wolves and foxes all mixed together in no order. This not to mention the 4500 bone remains of bears! Upon close examination of all these deposits we find that very few complete skeletons remain, disproving these deaths being accidental. We must consider their occurrence being a direct consequence of the Flood. More evidence of high water deposition is found detailed in the fossils section in this volume.
Its official, fossil sites have totaled more than 1 million around the world. 3 Great fossil graveyards that exist in every major continent in the world. In these graveyards vast numbers of creatures are violently mixed together. There are dinosaur graveyards in America and China with hundreds of dinosaurs mixed and buried together with clams, turtles and many other animals. Many fossil graveyards are high up in mountainous areas. In Sicily for example, four thousand feet above sea level on Mount Etna, there are two caves crammed with the bones of thousands of hippopotamus in each grave. On the island of Malta there are lions, tigers, mammoths, birds, beavers, hippopotamus, foxes and more all mixed together. One cave in Malta contains so many fossils that Malta's present size would not keep this awesome quantity fed for just one week! In America, a death pit exists near Hollywood, with eagles, doves and approximately two hundred and fifty saber tooth tigers and fifty elephants. In Oregon there are beds with elephants, camels, cats, bison, mammoths and mastodon, whales and turtles, mice, lemurs, opossum, beaver and dozens of types of clams to name a few all in water sediment deposits. (1, 2)
1. Oregon Fossils, Orr & Orr 2009, p.103, 196-201, 223.
2. Oregon Geology, Orr&Orr 2012, p.199
Along the Arctic coast, naturalists found thousands of mastodons laying out in the tundra, in Siberia, entire islands were made of bones and carcasses of the animals and many were found intact and washed in jumbles by the millions. In Antarctica, fossil beds abound. In California, petrified fish, fossilized with mouths open, backs arched and fins spread, have been found. Many of these fish are partly on end with the body passing through two planes of rock-strata.By modern geology this would mean that the fish-tail is separated from its head by millions of years. That, of course, is not possible. There are approximately five fish per square foot over approximately four square miles. This equates to more than one billion fossilized fish! These graveyards are dramatic evidence that an era of the world ended with enormous violence world-wide in scope. Many Geologists and Paleontologists have an innate distaste for catastrophism, and that's understandable, Catastrophists easily identify every strata of sediment with a worldwide flood, layer upon layer in the rocks. The author experienced this in college geology classes, when professors were presented with this evidence they abandoned uniformity!
Like the soft body Mosasaur found in South Dakota in 2010 (1), all have been rapidly buried, died, and then later exposed as uniform erosion has exposed them. Actually, if compare this Mosasaur to the Mammoth soft body finds in Siberia and Alaska, they were exposed in identical ways, so why are the Mammoths dated only in thousand of years old and the marine reptiles 80 Millions of years past? Who makes these determinations, are they taking into account soft body tissue and know decay rates into consideration? Who ever heard of soft body tissue surviving more than a few hundreds of years in thawed sediment? "As recently as 2010, a newly discovered ten-foot-long Mosasaur fossil was discovered along the Missouri River in South Dakota; "Its "remarkable" preservation not only kept the bones in articulated positions, but also retained some original soft tissues." The report also stated, "This fossil also includes the contents of the animal's stomach―its last meal."(1) "The fossil that was discovered this past summer lived during the Age of Reptiles 80 million years ago." (2)
Truly, considering the magnitude, variety and quantity of fossil deposits found around the globe from the Arctic to Antarctic, Australia to Arkansas and Russia to South Africa, a story is told among the heaps of dead. One interpretation says these deposits happened randomly across the eons in local events; another most all occurred in one world-enveloping event that 4 chapters of the Bible are consumed to describe. The basic elements of the Catastrophe are also recorded in over 100 history accounts of peoples and cultures of the past from around the world. As no one has observed fossils deposited stacked like this anywhere in any recent event local or other wise, looking at the sum of it is compelling. As of this writing, the world fossil grave yards exceed 1 million in number, so many that maps from every continent are so full of these graveyards individual resolution is difficult to provide information on their specific locations.
Human Fossils
Evolutionists often mention that if the Bible is true, where are all the human fossils left from the flood?
Just offshore of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, lies a formation of limestone dated as Miocene, or about 25 million years old. However, history records show that in the late 1700's many human skeletons---all indistinguishable from modern humans---were excavated from this limestone. One of the quarried specimens, ensconced in a 2-ton slab, was shipped to the British Museum where It arrived in 1812 and was placed on public display. But with the ascendance of Darwinism, the fossil skeleton was quietly spirited away to the basement. The discovery of these human remains has been well documented in the scientific literature. In many places around the world, human remains have been found behind walls in sealed caves, could these have been people trying to escape the flood waters? Now if you were someone who new a flood was coming, what would you do? Most likely get into a boat or go to high ground. Neither place would provide much of an opportunity to be buried. Besides, mammals sink then float and disintegrate, reptile drown and sink. Maybe that's why we see far more reptiles like dinosaurs in the fossil beds.
Book Report - Forbidden Archeology
Human remains huddled to gather in groups, fragments, skulls, femurs and every body part have been uncovered all over the world. They come out of hardrock and coal mines, sealed in caves and every other condition imaginable. Hidden from the public view for decades, two daring scientists have dared to expose the back room of anthropology in the recent book Forbidden Archeology authored by Micheal Cremo and Richard Thompson now in its 15th printing. Their work also document page after page of relics from a society of pre-history, including tools, ceramic ladles, pots, dolls, images, signage and metal extrusions unearthed in deep strata across the globe. These articles are exactly what we would expect to find if there was a would wide flood. For more see page this site Flood Artifacts.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
If you accept scriptures as your only source for truth, then you are not following scripture:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Rock and a hard place, it seems.
There used to be a popular creationist whose debating style was to throw out dozens of claims as fast as he could, hoping that his opponent would run out of time before he debunked them all. This was the infamous "Gish Gallop." I'm not sure why that came to mind just now, but let me get started...
Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.
The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.
"The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns."
The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.
Either than, or it was the delta for the ancient rivers which led into the area. Today, we see the same sort of thing, where rivers carry bodies of dead animals downstream, only to drop them at the delta where the water slows down. Deltas form flat, very level deposits, and these extend offshore for many miles. Given the fact that one of these is known and observed to happen, and that the other seems to have left no signs whatever (extreme turbulence would be obvious in the deposits, if this was the result of a single catastrophic flood, and as your source admits, the evidence is just the opposite.
We'll deal with the rest sequentially over a few days.
Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation.
Almost always where streams slowed or formed deltas. Which is what we see happening today. Bodies get swept down river and are dropped where the river slows or enters a larger body of water. This is no mystery.
The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4).
The Great Barrier Reef is a similar mass, still forming. No mystery there, either.
As you see, no great catastrophe is necessary to produce this kind of assemblage. We see it going on today.
I'll do another one tomorrow.
We can both look at what is here now before us, and form our reasoning in relation to the same. Neither of us has or ever could have any idea what natural events transpiring right now might leave for future observers millions of years from now. Millions of years does not increase the probability of the preservation of fossils, to the contrary, it makes such all the more unlikely. The long ages evolution requires, are in fact detrimental to the probability of fossil preservation. They allow for far to much time and change to make such preservation likely or logical. This concerning natural presently observable rates of decay and change, and the destructive forces of catastrophic localized or global events, which even evolutionists are well aware have occurred. Never mind these details though, evolutionists stick to their more unlikely theories, regardless. The best explanation for such huge and ever increasing number of preserved fossils is fairly recent catastrophic event, or events, not countless millions of years of unlikely preservation. But hey, you of course have the right to put your faith in whatever you wish.
Here is some more evidence of young earth and creation you can deny and explain away according to your faith.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue (https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue)
Scientists studying dinosaur evolution are finding many more bones to pick.
Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.
https://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-tissue-found-in-cretaceous-fossil-bird/ (https://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-tissue-found-in-cretaceous-fossil-bird/)
More Soft Tissue Found in Cretaceous Fossil Bird
Unrepentant over extreme falsification, evolutionary paleontologists are just taking it for granted that soft tissue can survive millions of years.
Scientists have reported soft tissues from the lower hindlimb of a Cretaceous bird. Writing in Nature Communications, Jiang et al. say,
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/)
Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Attorneys for a California State University, Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was "fascinated" to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school's biology department and even some students "because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/27/scientists-discover-first-fossilised-dinosaur-brain-tissue (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/27/scientists-discover-first-fossilised-dinosaur-brain-tissue)
Dinosaur brain tissue discovered for first time in 130m-year-old fossil
While casts of the inside of dinosaur brain cases have been found before, it is the first time fossilised brain soft tissue has been discovered for any land-living vertebrate.
"The most striking thing is that something as delicate as brain tissue, and which you wouldn't expect to ever see, has been preserved," said Alex Liu, co-author of the research from the University of Cambridge. "It just speaks volumes [about] the spectacular preservational quality that can be obtained in the fossil record even 130 million years after this dinosaur is alive."
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html)
"We have shown the presence of protein preserved in a 195 million-year-old dinosaur, at least 120 million years older than any other similar discovery," study co-author Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto Mississauga, told AFP.
"These proteins are the building blocks of animal soft tissues, and it's exciting to understand how they have been preserved," he added.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html#jCp (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html#jCp)
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material (http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material)
Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material
- Two Dinosaur Soft Tissue Predictions Confirmed! Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had predicted on air and in writing at rsr.org/predictions that:
- Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for. CONFIRMED in 2015! The journal Nature Communications reported original tissue in six of eight dinosaur bones investigated, leading to the conclusion that "preservation is more common than previously thought." And:
- Original dinosaur and other biological tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. RECONFIRMED in June 2016! The journal Nature Communications reported original biological material in Gunflint chert allegedly from 1.88 billion years ago in the Proterozoic "Eon" (i.e., layer). First CONFIRMED in 2014, The Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old! (See 60+ similar discoveries.)
http://westerndigs.org/americas-most-complete-armored-dinosaur-soft-tissues-intact-found-in-montana/ (http://westerndigs.org/americas-most-complete-armored-dinosaur-soft-tissues-intact-found-in-montana/)
America's Most Complete Armored Dinosaur, Soft Tissues Intact, Found in Montana
Finding a complete skull and tail intact, along with a host of well-preserved soft tissues, may illuminate the physiology and evolution of these unusual animals, said Drs. Victoria Arbour and David Evans of the Royal Ontario Museum, who reported the find.
"The new specimen ... is the most complete ankylosaurid ever found in North America, making it a key reference skeleton for interpreting more fragmentary specimens," the researchers write, in the new issue of Royal Society Open Science.
https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2017/03/22/confuciusornis/ (https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2017/03/22/confuciusornis/)
Although at first glance the skeletal remains of that fossil are not fabulous compared with some other Confuciusornis, what makes this one lovely is that, on peering at it with multiple microscopic and other imaging techniques, he (and me, and a China-UK collaboration that grew over the years) found striking evidence of very well-preserved fossil soft tissues. Our paper reporting on these findings has gone live in Nature Communications so I can blog about it now.
https://www.infowars.com/massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-feathers/ (https://www.infowars.com/massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-feathers/)
MASSIVE DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERY IN CHINA – INCLUDES SKIN AND FEATHERS!
A fossil bed in China that is being called "Jurassic Park" has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, "nearly-complete skeletons" have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really "160 million years old", that should be absolutely impossible.
Here is some more evidence of young earth and creation you can deny and explain away according to your faith.
Scientists have known for a very long time that organic material can survive for many millions of years. Coal, oil, plant resin, and invertebrate connective tissue have been known for a very long time. So far, no one has actually found tissue or even cells as anything but fossils of equal age.
The fact that collagen can survive hundreds of millions of years in anoxic conditions, if sufficient iron is present is a relatively new discovery. Interestingly, these discoveries have provided one more bit of evidence for evolution.
A bit of heme (part of a hemoglobin molecule found in blood) was isolated from a T-rex fossil. When injected into rabbits, it formed antibodies against the heme. The antibodies reacted more strongly against the heme of birds than that of modern reptiles, validating the other evidence, showing birds evolved from dinosaurs.
And now you know the rest of the story.
A fossil bed in China that is being called "Jurassic Park" has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, "nearly-complete skeletons" have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really "160 million years old", that should be absolutely impossible.
That would be very cool. But the skin and feathers so far reported, are fossilized, replaced by minerals. Do you have a link?
: The Barbarian Mon Jul 10, 2017 - 07:27:30
Scientists have known for a very long time that organic material can survive for many millions of years. Coal, oil, plant resin, and invertebrate connective tissue have been known for a very long time. So far, no one has actually found tissue or even cells as anything but fossils of equal age.
The fact that collagen can survive hundreds of millions of years in anoxic conditions, if sufficient iron is present is a relatively new discovery. Interestingly, these discoveries have provided one more bit of evidence for evolution.
A bit of heme (part of a hemoglobin molecule found in blood) was isolated from a T-rex fossil. When injected into rabbits, it formed antibodies against the heme. The antibodies reacted more strongly against the heme of birds than that of modern reptiles, validating the other evidence, showing birds evolved from dinosaurs.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Knowing it, doesn't increase the chances of it happening one bit, accept in the minds of those exercising authentic faith in that which they choose to believe. So, a fossil formed antibodies? Something about your above argument doesn't add up bro. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to mount against the probability of your chosen and treasured theory.
(Barbarian shows that numerous examples of organic material existing for hundreds of million of years have been known for many years)
Knowing it, doesn't increase the chances of it happening one bit,
It merely shows the reality that such molecules can survive for many millions of years, under the right conditions. No one is surprised by that.
accept in the minds of those exercising authentic faith in that which they choose to believe.
No point in denying what is already known, is there?
So, a fossil formed antibodies?
When a bit of the heme (fraction of a hemoglobin molecule) was injected into a rabbit, the rabbit produced anitbodies against it. The antibodies reacted most strongly to the heme of birds, rather than that of modern reptiles, confirming again the prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Something about your above argument doesn't add up bro.
It's not an argument. It's just a documented fact.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.
Here's more...
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html)
Bold and underlined in the following quote is mine.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.
Here's more...
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Soft tissue, and fossilized soft tissue are two different things. Do you deny finding actual soft tissues or not? If finding similarities between species equalled proof of theories, their could be no end to the number of theories which could fabricated according to the same. T-Rex to chickens, really? Get a grip. Again, the countless ages necessary for changes of such an enormous and extremely complex nature, do not logically allow for the preservation of soft tissue in ay way shape or form for hundreds of millions of years. Who cares about logic though, when supporting ones religion, right?
: Amo Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 08:33:46 Who cares about logic though, when supporting ones religion, right?
That most definitely is the position of the Young Earth Creationists.
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 17, 2017 - 12:25:42
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all.
Let God be God, and have it His way.
The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.
: th1b.taylor Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 11:55:40
The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.
Supersede the authority of God?? Seriously?? The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.
Soft tissue, and fossilized soft tissue are two different things.
Yep. So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old. As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years. As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen. Amber, for example.
On the other hand, tissues, which are assemblages of intact cells, remain to be demonstrated.
The point is, that these intact materials once again verified evolutionary theory which says that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are a few ornithologists who say that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, but the discovery that dinosaur heme and collagen is most like that of birds would be the case for either of those.
If finding similarities between species equalled proof of theories,
"Similarities" is too vague. This shows that the molecular structure of bird heme and collagen are most like that of dinosaurs, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
T-Rex to chickens, really?
To be precise, T. rex (the species part of the name is always lower-case) is a distant cousin to the dinosaurs that actually gave rise to birds. Huxley, over a hundred years ago, first proposed that connection, based on anatomical features of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs. The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and numberous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was further confirmation. And now, the predicted fit of dino/bird collagen and heme further verify the theory.
Again, the countless ages necessary for changes of such an enormous and extremely complex nature, do not logically allow for the preservation of soft tissue in ay way shape or form for hundreds of millions of years.
I realize you really, really want to believe this. But the evidence shows that you are incorrect. We have known for a very long time that some organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in the proper conditions. It's not just heme and collagen. Reality wins out over anyone's beliefs.
Supersede the authority of God?? Seriously?? The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.
We should always be humble enough to recognize that we can be wrong, and while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, neither YE creationism nor evolution are confirmed by scripture. Theologically, YE creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us.
We often forget this; if I have failed to confirm that from time to time, I have been wrong in failing to do so.
: The Barbarian Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 19:16:07
We should always be humble enough to recognize that we can be wrong, and while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, neither YE creationism nor evolution are confirmed by scripture. Theologically, YE creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us.
We often forget this; if I have failed to confirm that from time to time, I have been wrong in failing to do so.
Yes of course we can be wrong. I do not view YEC as un-Christian. The congregation that I fellowship with is probably 90% YEC. However, it is typically the YEC that views anyone holding to an old universe and evolution as sub-Christian. As I often point out, the difference here as in most differences in theology is not what God has said but rather what one thinks God means by what He said, i.e., interpretation.
As goes pretty much any issue especially doctrine. It's always a matter of arguing over what God said to whom based on a given perspective viewed through a particular semantic filter through the sieve of long held dogma.
: Jaime Sat Jul 15, 2017 - 07:26:50
As goes pretty much any issue especially doctrine. It's always a matter of arguing over what God said to whom based on a given perspective viewed through a particular semantic filter through the sieve of long held dogma.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
So, so true ! !
Barbarian -
Yep. So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old. As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years. As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen. Amber, for example.
I hardly think Amber and animal soft tissues are enough alike to use as complementary examples of decay over time.
You know nothing. You illogically claim to know these things survived over a hundred million years, because this is essential to your faith, not reality in any way shape or form. Short of being around for more than a hundred million years to examine dead animals you witnessed buried in the ground for that amount of time, you know nothing. Which is simply to say, you know nothing. You presume organic materials can last so long, because that allows for your faith. That is all. Apart from this, the following quote from the site provided doesn't seem to support your above claim. Are they misrepresenting facts, or are you?
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material (http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material)
Biological Material Found: As of 2017, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including beta-keratin, the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton components actin, tropomyosin, and the related motor protein myosin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, pigment and evidence of melanosomes, DNA-related histone proteins, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests.
Barbarian -
On the other hand, tissues, which are assemblages of intact cells, remain to be demonstrated.
Again, the quote I provided doesn't seem to be on the same page as you, as the following quote does not either.
http://www.icr.org/article/mysteries-stunning-soft-tissue-fossil/ (http://www.icr.org/article/mysteries-stunning-soft-tissue-fossil/)
In 1992, while peering through a microscope at dinosaur bone fragments that had their hard minerals removed, Schweitzer discovered red discs that appeared identical to reptile red blood cells. She wrote in the December 2010 issue of Scientific American:
And those ruby microscopic structures appeared only in the vessel channels, never in the surrounding bone or in the sediments adjacent to the bones, just as should be true of blood cells.1
The find was an utter shock because of the long-held belief that fossilized bones have had all their original materials replaced by external minerals. Thus, a colleague's admonition to prove they aren't red blood cells has motivated Schweitzer's research ever since. So far, she has been unable to do this. She has also been unable to prove that fresh-looking blood vessels, various soft protein samples, and structures identical to bone cells (osteocytes) are anything other than what they appear to be.
These discoveries presented profound mysteries. Researchers had always expected that "after millions of years, buried in sediments and exposed to geochemical conditions that varied over time, what was preserved in these bones might bear little chemical resemblance to what was there when the dinosaur was alive."1 But this is an extraordinary understatement. In fact, given what is known of tissue and biomolecular decay, after all that time there should be nothing preserved at all and, thus, zero resemblance to any original dinosaur tissue.
Barbarian -
The point is, that these intact materials once again verified evolutionary theory which says that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are a few ornithologists who say that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, but the discovery that dinosaur heme and collagen is most like that of birds would be the case for either of those.
No, you deny what the point is, and insist it is whatever you make it. We are not subject to the confines of the box which is your own faith. The point brought forward is that no organic materials and or soft tissues should exist after over a hundred million years. You do not like the implications of this point upon the validity of your faith, so you illogically just accept that these things can survive over a hundred million years, and move on to that which can be construed to support your faith. Never mind the ever increasing discoveries and evidences which bring that faith into question. There are all kinds of similarities between animals and species. None of these similarities supply any more proof of evolution than they do of creation. Similarities would be likely to both. Evolution however, lacks the evidence of the countless millions of intermediary links which should exist according to their faith. Creationists need no such links.
Barbarian -
"Similarities" is too vague. This shows that the molecular structure of bird heme and collagen are most like that of dinosaurs, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
No, this shows that evolutionists are always on the look out for whatever evidence they may construe to their own ends. They have been wrong many times before, and may very well be wrong about this as well. If or when they present a list of comparison between molecular structure of heme and collagen of birds with every other species, then and only then could anyone know if they are most like that of dinosaurs. For now, they simply claim it because it backs up their faith. Such is not science. Produce the proof of data from scientific examination with all other species. Then if such could or can be established, you can continue to search for the real necessary evidence to back up your faith, finding more of the countless intermediary forms of developmental stages that should exist according to evolutionary faith.
Barbarian -
To be precise, T. rex (the species part of the name is always lower-case) is a distant cousin to the dinosaurs that actually gave rise to birds. Huxley, over a hundred years ago, first proposed that connection, based on anatomical features of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs. The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and numberous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was further confirmation. And now, the predicted fit of dino/bird collagen and heme further verify the theory.
You mean, according to your evolutionary faith. Please do provide the info on the supposed numerous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Huxley has been proved wrong before, and shown to jump to conclusions in support of his evolutionary faith. Observe -
http://creation.com/bathybius-haeckelii (http://creation.com/bathybius-haeckelii)
The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin's theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people's minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of 'Monera' to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence.
It was Thomas Henry Huxley's enthusiasm that brought Bathybius into the world (figure 1). He was encouraged in this endeavour by Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the foremost supporters of abiogenesis during the latter part of the nineteenth century; the idea that life can arise from non-life. Bathybius though was to turn into a real embarrassment for both when it was found to be merely a chemical precipitate (amorphous gypsum). Seemingly their judgment was clouded due to their strong determination to find evidence for Darwin's new theory. But there is also evidence that Huxley was engaged in a campaign of rhetorical bullying at the time as well to silence critics. The Duke of Argyll (George Douglas Campbell) for instance complained about a 'reign of terror.'
Barbarian -
I realize you really, really want to believe this. But the evidence shows that you are incorrect. We have known for a very long time that some organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in the proper conditions. It's not just heme and collagen. Reality wins out over anyone's beliefs.
You have known and know absolutely nothing. You presume and pass off your presumptions as scientific established fact, according to your desire to establish your own faith above that of others. You lift up yourself as the latest prophets of God, reinterpreting His word for all according to your own prideful and debased understanding. Peter though, under the inspiration of God, warned us of your kind long ago.
2 Pet 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
You are willingly ignorant of the fact that God destroyed this world with a global flood, and therefore will not examine scientific evidence in light of this truth. You are deceived. Therefore do you promote and argue your evolutionary faith. Your faith is in the word of fallen humanity above the testimony of God's word. Regardless of what you claim, the word of God condemns your course of action concerning this matter.
Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Barbarian observes:
Yep. So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old. As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years. As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen. Amber, for example.
I hardly think Amber and animal soft tissues are enough alike to use as complementary examples of decay over time.
As you know, no one has actually demonstrated survival of animal tissue. Not even intact cells. Right now, we have collagen and heme, with some pigment molecules, amber, and some invertebrate molecules.
You know nothing.
Sorry, postmodernism has no credibility with me.
You illogically claim to know these things survived over a hundred million years,
Normally, going with the evidence is considered logical thinking. So physics, geology, genetics, and so on all support the observation that these organic molecules survived for many millions of years.
You deny the evidence because this is essential to your faith, not reality in any way shape or form.
Short of being around for more than a hundred million years to examine dead animals you witnessed buried in the ground for that amount of time, you know nothing.
If your argument is that we can't know anything we weren't there to personally observe, I'd say you were being extremely illogical. Forensics, fire investigation, archeology, and a great many other sciences belie your belief.
You presume organic materials can last so long, because that allows for your faith.
Long before YE creationism was invented, physicists knew the rocks in the Earth were many millions of years old. Numerous checks have verified their findings, including an accurate measurement of the pyroclastic flow that destroyed Pompeii. So no point in denying what is so obviously demonstrated.
If or when they present a list of comparison between molecular structure of heme and collagen of birds with every other species, then and only then could anyone know if they are most like that of dinosaurs.
No, that's wrong. You're confusing a class of organisms (birds) with single species. All that was necessary to confirm the prediction was to show that birds are biochemically more like dinosaurs than either group is to reptiles. That confirms that birds and dinosaurs form a single ingroup within reptiles.
As you learned, the prediction was confirmed twice, once by heme and once by collagen. Finding intact tissue would be the final test. Such tissue, having intact cells, would almost certainly have DNA. And we already know what it will show, since the only living group of reptiles from the archosaurs, (crocodilians) shows genetic affinity to birds.
If you really want to know about birds, you have to consider the crocodile.
That point was driven home this week with the release of the genomes of 45 bird species, which reassigned some perches on the avian evolutionary tree and included some seemingly odd bedfellows.
Down near the roots of that avian tree lies a mysterious ancestor that was decidedly more terrestrial and terrifying than the finch or the wren.
The archosaur, or so-called "ruling reptile," roamed Earth about 250 million years ago, and "was something that was very reptilian, very early-dinosaur-ish, and then it evolved into modern-day crocodiles and birds," said David Haussler, Scientific Director of the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.
"So it really is the proper dinosaur ancestor," Haussler said. "And birds and crocodiles are the proper descendants of this ancestor."
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html)
you can continue to search for the real necessary evidence to back up your faith, finding more of the countless intermediary forms of developmental stages that should exist according to evolutionary faith.
It always surprises me that YE creationists have so little regard for faith that they equate it to science. Stronger faith would make it unnecessary for creationists to hold to those beliefs.
Dealing with facts and ignoring Trash Science is critical to productive thought processes. Dealing from Unproven Theories will never produce truth! All you have presented here is Trash Science ad is unprovable except one assumes assumptions are true and that is a double edged sword that bounces back into your face. Where is the proven reassurance, the field trials? Without those your presentation is all lies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYfNYcush4M
There are so many things that just don't fit the theory of evolution.
If "Christian" evolutionists are correct, then the creation account of scripture is either a lie, or one that needs to be interpreted for all by the new evolutionary prophets for the rest of us. Those who supposedly know the real truth, above the testimony of the prophets of God who wrote the scriptures. Genesis 6-10 is also completely false, since this account written by the prophets cannot fit into the evolutionary details provided by our prophets of the same. The following scriptures also either contain lies within or are a lie themselves.
Jos 24:1 And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. 2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. 3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.
Job 22:15 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? 16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:
Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Lk 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
1 Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
2 Pet 2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
If the judgment of God upon humanity through the flood is not true, why should any fear that the future judgment pronounced by the same prophets will or would be true?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
The above is either true or a lie. If it is true then evolution is a lie. If evolution is true then the above is a lie.
Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
AMO,
The mention of the "flood" in Joshua 24:2 and 24:15 is "river" in nearly all other translations and therefore do not help you in your claim.
If "Christian" evolutionists are correct, then the creation account of scripture is either a lie, or one that needs to be interpreted for all by the new evolutionary prophets for the rest of us.
You're off by a little over 1600 years. The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.
Those who supposedly know the real truth, above the testimony of the prophets of God who wrote the scriptures.
All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.
While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
: The Barbarian Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 22:10:07Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
: 4WD Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 11:33:25
AMO,
The mention of the "flood" in Joshua 24:2 and 24:15 is "river" in nearly all other translations and therefore do not help you in your claim.
Interesting. Learn something new every day. The verse does seem to make more sense especially if in fact a river was crossed by Abraham in his travels to Canaan. That's another topic altogether though.
This in no way effects the force of the fact that evolutionists must deny the validity of a whole lot of scripture to follow their unbiblical faith. I'd still like to hear an explanation of all the scriptures telling of or referring to the flood, by the evolutionary prophets who refute these scriptures. Are these scripture just a lie, or is there light in them which only the evolutionists know or can explain? Please do address the issue.
: The Barbarian Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 22:10:07
You're off by a little over 1600 years. The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.
All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.
While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
Yes there have always been those who denied the words of God's prophets. Now you are just more of the same.
You are probably right concerning "Christians". This world now has "Christians" which allow for almost anything and everything the bible condemns. Those who place their beliefs and faith in the observations of fallen humanity above the word of God. There is no light in them.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
There is no humility in placing the word of man above the word of God. All such is false and deceptive humility. The self destructive humility of the devil himself. The first one to put the authority of his own words above that of God's.
It usually is not the word of God that is at issue. It is almost always in a particular interpretation of the word of God that there is a problem.
: 4WD Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 17:16:07
It usually is not the word of God that is at issue. It is almost always in a particular interpretation of the word of God that there is a problem.
Yea, God's word makes simple conclusive statements, then some reinterpret them to mean whatever they wish.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
: Amo Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 19:08:22
Yea, God's word makes simple conclusive statements, then some reinterpret them to mean whatever they wish.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Yes, now look up the Hebrew word
yom which is translated "day":
From Strong's:
H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
From Vines OT:
Day
yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).
So much for your simple conclusive statement. As I said, it is almost never about what God said, it is almost always about one someone thinks God means when He said what He said.
We should always remember that our particular interpretation of scripture can be in error, and be humble enough to recognize that other Christians may have different interpretations, and still be good Christians.
: 4WD Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 19:54:21
Yes, now look up the Hebrew word yom which is translated "day":
From Strong's:
H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
From Vines OT:
Day
yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).
So much for your simple conclusive statement. As I said, it is almost never about what God said, it is almost always about one someone thinks God means when He said what He said.
Yea like I said, God makes a simple conclusive statement, and some people turn it into whatever they wish. For the last 4 thousand years the Jews and others have been keeping the seventh
day sabbath according to the commandment, but God didn't even mean literal days when speaking it. That makes a lot of sense. Then He even punished Israel many times over for not keeping that literal seventh day as commanded, yet He didn't even mean a literal day when He said it. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Deception always complicates that which is simple.
AMO. what is the meaning of the word "day" in Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ?
From Strong's:
H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
I took the liberty of emphasizing a most important element of determining when the word day means more than a literal one or not. When it is not, the scriptures themselves help define this by an associated term, explanation, or straight up testimony to the contrary. On the other hand no doubt, when God intends that all should know it surely does mean a single literal day, He does the same that all should understand this as well. As in the creation account when he referred to each day with an evening and a morning. These are associated terms that unquestionably point to a literal single day. Accepting of course for those who simply refuse to allow scripture to speak for itself. You shared the above from Strong's, will you not heed it's own recommendations. Please do show us how you will explain this away as well. Just how much more complicated can you make the subject according to your deception?
As far as that which you shared from Vines OT, this is the opinion of just another man such as yourself, that is all. God absolutely did not rest from creation to the first coming of Christ. During that time He was very busy dealing with the fall of humanity, and the constant backsliding of His professed people. Since the fall He has been continually working and striving to get fallen humanity to enter into His rest, that they might be saved from the sinfulness of their own works.
: 4WD Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 08:59:00
AMO. what is the meaning of the word "day" in Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ?
Strong's
8435 towldah to-led-aw' or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from 3205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations.
It means this is the history of the birth of this world. The order of its creation.
Genesis 2:4New King James Version (NKJV)
4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:4Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 This is the history of [the origin of] the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [that is, days of creation] that the [a]Lord God made the earth and the heavens—
Genesis 2:4Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
4 This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens—
Genesis 2:4Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
Man and Woman in the Garden
4 These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation. At the time[a] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:4Common English Bible (CEB)
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
World's creation in the garden
On the day the Lord God made earth and sky—
Genesis 2:4Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
(A: iv, S: ii) 4 Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. On the day when Adonai, God, made earth and heaven,
Genesis 2:4Contemporary English Version (CEV)
4 That's how God created the heavens and the earth.
The Garden of Eden
When the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,
Genesis 2:4Darby Translation (DARBY)
4 These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,
Genesis 2:4Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The First Man and the Garden of Eden
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky.
Genesis 2:4GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)
The Creation of Man and Woman
4 This is the account of heaven and earth when they were created, at the time when the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Genesis 2:4Good News Translation (GNT)
4 And that is how the universe was created.
The Garden of Eden
When the Lord[a] God made the universe,
Genesis 2:4Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Man and Woman in the Garden
4 These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time[a] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4International Standard Version (ISV)
Humans in the Garden
4 These are the records of the universe at its[a] creation. On the day that the Lord God made the universe,
Genesis 2:4Modern English Version (MEV)
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:4New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
I. The Story of the Nations
The Garden of Eden. 4 This is the story[a] of the heavens and the earth at their creation. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens—
Genesis 2:4New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 [a]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Genesis 2:4New English Translation (NET Bible)
The Creation of Man and Woman
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
Genesis 2:4New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
Adam and Eve
4 Here is the story of the heavens and the earth when they were created. The Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4New International Version (NIV)
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
4 These be the generations of heaven and of earth, in the day wherein the Lord God made heaven and earth, (These be the generations, or the creation, of the heavens and the earth, in the days when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,)
: Amo Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 09:15:02As far as that which you shared from Vines OT, this is the opinion of just another man such as yourself, that is all. God absolutely did not rest from creation to the first coming of Christ.
It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ. It says God rested from
"...all his work that he had done in creation." Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).
And by the way, you still didn't answer how long was the "day" in Genesis 2:4.
: 4WD Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 14:52:52
It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ. It says God rested from "...all his work that he had done in creation." Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).
And by the way, you still didn't answer how long was the "day" in Genesis 2:4.
My bad.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ.
It was until at least His second coming.
The meaning of the word day in Gen 2:4 is made evident by the context and terms used surrounding it.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,The word day refers to the time period of creation, the six days God created it in, and the seventh day on which He rested. This is what the context and related term generations suggests. Just as the words day in relation to each day of creation were a single day as the terms morning and evening attached to each one of them unquestionably suggests. Which suggestion you ignore or deny because you don't want to believe in a six day creation, or young earth. I'm not the one ignoring context or related terms here, you are.
I wouldn't describe being full time involved in the salvation of rebellious humanity, rest. Especially when doing so involved God becoming a human being, being tempted as we are, being falsely accused, persecuted, hated, beaten, tortured, and crucified for that salvation, would you? Perhaps those whose chosen beliefs require such a contradictory view, must incorporate the same. I have no such dilemma.
A few more articles concerning rapid formation in contrast to the false claims of the need of millions of years and evolution to be where we are now.
http://creation.com/rapid-stalactites
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/rapid-opals-outback/
http://creation.com/the-rapid-formation-of-granitic-rocks-more-evidence
http://creation.com/rapid-formation-of-the-mount-isa-orebodies
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html
https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html
Actually, it's been known for a very long time that a huge release of water can scour out canyons in relatively short time. Decades ago, the scablands were determined to be the result of a sudden flood when Lake Missoula suddenly broke out of a glacial trap. It was a model for the Martian canyons that seem to have been similarly formed. What can't happen suddenly is this:
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
This sort of formation can only happen over millions of years, in a rejuvenated river where the bed becomes trapped and cuts deeper and deeper into stone.
http://creation.com/the-rapid-formation-of-granitic-rocks-more-evidence
This belief would be easy to support. Just make some granite in the laboratory. It's easy to melt the minerals found in granite if you have a proper furnace.
But getting them to solidify into separate crystals, that's another thing entirely. There are granites only a few thousand years old, but the crystals are almost microscopic. The longer the hardening process takes, the larger the crystals.
It is truly sad that you and your friends, I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
It is truly sad that you and your friends, I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 08:48:50
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
I am not the one ginning things up, that is you and the
Devil. I am obeying Jesus when He said we must believe as a small child. When all of my children were small they thought I was a every word that came out of my mouth
they thought I was a genius and they questioned nothing and thought I was the toughest and roughest and coud beat anyone up. Sad to say but you are not bekieving that way.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 08:48:50
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
I wonder just what non-scriptural miracles you are referring to? Would you mind sharing them with us?
Barbarian suggests:
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
I am not the one ginning things up
But you are. When you see something that could not have happened as creationists say it did, it's wrong to imagine a new miracle to cover the problem.
I am obeying Jesus when He said we must believe as a small child.
Then why not accept His word as it is, without adding new miracles?
Why add things to make your own ideas fit?
Dear Evolutionist.
What is one evidence for evolution, please?
: KiwiChristian Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 20:49:05
Dear Evolutionist.
What is one evidence for evolution, please?
Bacteria is one evidence that we can observe in motion, it evolves to resist new antibiotics and evolves to produce new enzymes that are responsible for maintaining life in vertebrates.
Here is another quick and short link that gets straight to the point.
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution)
Could go on all day posting links to research but I doubt it will be absorbed or even given an objective study.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 19:30:40
Barbarian suggests:
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
But you are. When you see something that could not have happened as creationists say it did, it's wrong to imagine a new miracle to cover the problem.
Then why not accept His word as it is, without adding new miracles?
Why add things to make your own ideas fit?
I guess your not going to tell us what non scriptural miracles you were referring to.
Dear Evolutionist.
What is one evidence for evolution, please?
Here's few:
Observed speciations.
Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection
Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record
Zero transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any
Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things
Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles
Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
I guess your not going to tell us what non scriptural miracles you were referring to.
Just showed you one.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
And the response was that:
I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work? Sure, He can. But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 15:00:05
Just showed you one.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work? Sure, He can. But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.
Just exactly how is this photo a non scriptural miracle? You and others presume that what we see could only come about over the course of millions of years, and that makes it a non scriptural miracle. Is that it? BALONEY! You have no idea what varying results could transpire from a global catastrophic flood, which included changing the entire surface of the earth when the fountains of the deep erupted, and flood waters wreaked havoc upon the same for many years to come as they slowly receded shifting and moving the surface of the earth in ways we cannot imagine. Countless millions of tons of water and mud moving about rapidly and creating destruction and mass burials all the while. Your photo is easily just much of the same creating a channel following a path of least resistance during the same. This is not to mention the many more minor catastrophes and convulsions of the earth taking place in succession as the world settled into its new form of water and land placement, or should I say displacement.
No doubt for many decades if not centuries after the flood the surface of the earth was much softer and more pliable than it was originally, or is now after so many thousands of years of settling and intense pressure from the sheer mass of it all. Things you presume would take millions of years would happen much more rapidly in such an environment. As a scoffer though, what would you know of these things.
2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first,
that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:Your are willingly ignorant of these truths of scripture, therefore is there no light in you pertaining to them. Thus you turn to the supposed experts of this world for light, over the testimony of the word of God.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 15:00:05
Just showed you one.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work? Sure, He can. But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.
Of course this could of happened in a single flood. What? You think the flood was slow and calm?
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Here's few:
Observed speciations.
Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection
Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record
Zero transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any
Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things
Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles
Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
I see you are not too good at reading comprehension.
I asked for ONE.
Now, lets discuss things ONE at a time.
"Observed speciations."
Oh, variations within a kind happen. But they are still the same kind of animal.
We get big dogs, little dogs, black dogs and brown dogs.
But they are STILL a dog!
This is NOT evidence they all came from soup 4.6 billion years ago or that dogs and cats are related.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Just another link in the supposed evolutionary chain, breaking. Surprise, surprise, variation in skull types is not necessarily proof of different species and or evolutionary process of development, as supposed. Evolutionists admit that if these skulls found together were found separately, they would have been deemed different species and stages of evolutionary development. No telling how much more of evolutionary conjecture is just as flawed. Time will continue to tell no doubt, as it already has.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection
Observed FITNESS?
Really?
Natural selection SELECTS, it doesnt CREATE anything.
This is NOT "evolution".
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record
There is no such thing as a LIVE "transitional" form.
You DO know that the so-called "fossil record" exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks, right?
We see polystrata fossils. Petrified trees in the upright or even upside DOWN position going through SEVERAL rock layers that are supposedly thousands or millions of years apart in age. This proves the layers are NOT as old as people make them out to be.
There are, in fact ZERO transitional fossils.
If you find a fossil in the dirt or rock the ONLY thing it can tell you is that SOMETHING DIED. You dont know it had ANY kids, let alone how old it is as radiometric carbon dating methods DONT work.
And why you think a fossil in the ground can do something a living creature cant ( which is, produce something other than its' kind ) is beyond me.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things
Can you rephrase this one, i dont really get what you mean.
Is this the "family tree" that shows, as darwin said that all living things are related?
If so, i refer you to my comments regarding fossils.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles
You can build many different things with metal. It is a good building material and usually a building material does not need to be made if metal will do the job.
This shows a common DESIGNER.
If you are saying that birds came FROM dinosaurs, you are not up with current research as the so-called dino-birds have been proven to be false.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
Common structures show a common DESIGNER. Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
: KiwiChristian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:46:28Common structures show a common DESIGNER. Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
And no one who understands evolution would ever assert that to be the case. I am not necessarily a proponent of evolution, but totally inaccurate posits like that do not help the discussion.
Observed FITNESS?
Really?
Yep. Fitness is usually not hard to quantify. Would you like some examples?
Natural selection SELECTS, it doesnt CREATE anything.
Mutation and natural selection do tend to increase fitness in a population. That is what evolution is.
This is NOT "evolution".
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's what we see. Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.
Common structures show a common DESIGNER.
God is not a designer. He's the Creator. Design is what imperfect creatures do. And your assumption is incorrect about common structures. For example, sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins have common structures, but when you look closely, they are derived from different things. You're assuming analogous organs, while evolution is about homologous organs. For example, dolphins are anatomically more like us than they are like sharks, even though they are analogous to sharks.
Common descent is marked by homologies.
Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
Again, you're confusing analogies with homologies. The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on. It is confirmed by genetic data showing that chimps and humans are more closely related than either is to other apes. So we shared a common ancestor that had already diverged from other apes.
You can build many different things with metal. It is a good building material and usually a building material does not need to be made if metal will do the job.
But because of details in the metal, it's possible to find where two metal objects have a common origin. For example, archaeologists can determine by the mix of trace elements in copper artifacts that the ore from which they were made, came from a common source in Cyprus.
This shows a common origin, not a common designer.
And we can check these findings by seeing if related individuals have more similar molecules than more distantly related ones. In the case of the dinosaur heme and collagen, the prediction was that it would be most like that of birds and crocodiles, and not as much like other modern reptiles. The prediction was confirmed.
There's no functional reason for this; it just shows common descent.
If you are saying that birds came FROM dinosaurs
This pretty well nails it, since it shows that they are closely related.
you are not up with current research as the so-called dino-birds have been proven to be false.
You've been misled about that. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia has claimed that birds did not descend from dinosaurs, but that both birds and dinosaurs descended from a common thecodont ancestor. The results from heme and collagen show this is very unlikely, and numerous new transitional forms demonstrating the origin of birds, has convinced most scientists that Feduccia is wrong.
Would you like to learn more about the issue?
There is no such thing as a LIVE "transitional" form.
Of course there are. For example, there are transitional forms between wood roaches and termites. There are transitional forms between eutherian mammals and reptiles. There are transitional forms between invertebrates and chordates, and so on. Would you like to learn about some of them?
You DO know that the so-called "fossil record" exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks, right?
If you think so, you've never taken a good look at a limestone cliff. There are many, many examples. Want to learn about those?
We see polystrata fossils. Petrified trees in the upright or even upside DOWN position going through SEVERAL rock layers that are supposedly thousands or millions of years apart in age.
Nope. The layers are only a few decades apart, in most cases. There are some polystrate trees being formed a few miles from my house, where a woods flooded by a dam years ago, is slowly burying them in sediment.
There are, in fact ZERO transitional fossils.
Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Which two would you like?
If you find a fossil in the dirt or rock the ONLY thing it can tell you is that SOMETHING DIED.
No, that's wrong, too. We can tell things like what kind of food it ate, if it was a freshwater or saltwater organism, what kind of metabolism it had, and many other things. Would you like to talk about how we know these things?
let alone how old it is as radiometric carbon dating methods DONT work.
Carbon-14 works fine, but it has to short a half-life to be of much use in paleontology. Would you like to learn how older rock are dated?
Barbarian observes:
Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
Of course this could of happened in a single flood.
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that. Meanders require slow, gradual erosion. A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks. We have such examples like the scablands. Meanders are never suddenly produced. Would you like to learn why?
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:59:16
Barbarian observes:
Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that. Meanders require slow, gradual erosion. A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks. We have such examples like the scablands. Meanders are never suddenly produced. Would you like to learn why?
Your right, no one will ever see it happen like that. There will never be a global flood again, and if there was, no one would live to tell anyone anything about it. Nor will anyone ever see, or has anyone ever seen it happen over the course of millions of years. Not possible. Your presumptions are as much conjecture as all he rest, and based upon the faulty observations of fallen humanity in contradiction to the word of God. Though you deny that word even when right in front of your face. Do you really believe, even if the world was countless millions of yeas old, that one spot on it would remain so unchanged for millions of years as to perfectly preserve the slow erosion of what we see in your photo over that course of time? Even that notion, is just plain silly.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:59:16
Barbarian observes:
Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that. Meanders require slow, gradual erosion. A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks. We have such examples like the scablands. Meanders are never suddenly produced. Would you like to learn why?
Yes, it can.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:39:16
God is not a designer. He's the Creator. Design is what imperfect creatures do. And your assumption is incorrect about common structures. For example, sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins have common structures, but when you look closely, they are derived from different things. You're assuming analogous organs, while evolution is about homologous organs. For example, dolphins are anatomically more like us than they are like sharks, even though they are analogous to sharks.
Common descent is marked by homologies.
Again, you're confusing analogies with homologies. The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on. It is confirmed by genetic data showing that chimps and humans are more closely related than either is to other apes. So we shared a common ancestor that had already diverged from other apes.
No, He is a creator. At least you admit there IS a God. God designed us AND created us.
"The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on"
Wrong. Again, it shows a common designer or creator.
: 4WD Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 19:39:45
And no one who understands evolution would ever assert that to be the case. I am not necessarily a proponent of evolution, but totally inaccurate posits like that do not help the discussion.
Oh, so humans and apes are NOT related?
Thats EXACTLY what evolutionists say.
I, too dislike inaccurate posts.
For someone who does not believe in evolution, you sure defend the religion a lot.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:34:03
Yep. Fitness is usually not hard to quantify. Would you like some examples?
Mutation and natural selection do tend to increase fitness in a population. That is what evolution is.
No, its natural selection.
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's what we see. Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.
Thats ONE very loose definition of evolution.
No-one disputes changes within a kind. big dogs, little dogs, etc.
But to extrapolate that into the belief that all living things ( humans, apes, cats, mice, plants, grass, etc. ) are all related to each other and that life began 4.6 billion years ago from a rock is a fairytale.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:46:38
But because of details in the metal, it's possible to find where two metal objects have a common origin. For example, archaeologists can determine by the mix of trace elements in copper artifacts that the ore from which they were made, came from a common source in Cyprus.
This shows a common origin, not a common designer.
Good point, my friend. But, i only used this as an analogy. Do you at least get what i am trying to say?
And we can check these findings by seeing if related individuals have more similar molecules than more distantly related ones. In the case of the dinosaur heme and collagen, the prediction was that it would be most like that of birds and crocodiles, and not as much like other modern reptiles. The prediction was confirmed.
So in other words ( so i understand you, i am not an academic ) because i have nails and some mammals have nails, that proves we are related somewhere along the line, is that what you are trying to say?
There's no functional reason for this; it just shows common descent.
This pretty well nails it, since it shows that they are closely related.
Fine.
You've been misled about that. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia has claimed that birds did not descend from dinosaurs, but that both birds and dinosaurs descended from a common thecodont ancestor. The results from heme and collagen show this is very unlikely, and numerous new transitional forms demonstrating the origin of birds, has convinced most scientists that Feduccia is wrong.
Wow, so a person CLAIMS that birds did NOT descend from dinosaurs? I have seen many professors say the opposite.
Show me a "transitional form", please. NOT a whole list, just ONE please and lets discuss it.
Would you like to learn more about the issue?
So far i havent seen you present any evidence and you havent disproven anything i have said.
Plus, you said you are NOT an evolutionist, so why would i come to YOU?
Also, since you are NOT an evolutionist, you just want to argue.
I would prefer to hear form an EVOLUTIONIST.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 01, 2017 - 19:49:37
Actually, it's been known for a very long time that a huge release of water can scour out canyons in relatively short time. Decades ago, the scablands were determined to be the result of a sudden flood when Lake Missoula suddenly broke out of a glacial trap. It was a model for the Martian canyons that seem to have been similarly formed. What can't happen suddenly is this:
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
This sort of formation can only happen over millions of years, in a rejuvenated river where the bed becomes trapped and cuts deeper and deeper into stone.
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
: AVZ Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 06:04:36There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
In the Snake River canyon, shown above, there are deserts and forests at different levels in the rock along with animal burrows, insect hives, etc. Seems unlikely that those would have had time to appear in flood deposits being laid down and then be covered during a year-long flood. How do you suppose that happened?
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
Nope. Never does. Sudden erosion never meanders. Those are almost kilometer-high banks. They were solid rock when they were eroded. Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters. Would you like me to show you?
[quote[So far i havent seen you present any evidence[/quote]
Just showed you some, which refutes your argument.
Plus, you said you are NOT an evolutionist, so why would i come to YOU?
I'm a biologist. But I accept the fact of evolution.
I would prefer to hear form an EVOLUTIONIST.
I'm just showing you the evidence for evolution.
Barbarian observes:
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's what we see. Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.
Thats ONE very loose definition of evolution.
No,that's the precise one used by scientists.
No-one disputes changes within a kind. big dogs, little dogs, etc.
Actually, many professional creationists now admit the fact that new species, genera, and families evolve. They suppose there's some kind of "wall" at higher taxa, but they can't show that it exists.
But to extrapolate that into the belief that all living things ( humans, apes, cats, mice, plants, grass, etc. ) are all related to each other and that life began 4.6 billion years ago from a rock is a fairytale.
Nope. Never does. Sudden erosion never meanders. Those are almost kilometer-high banks. They were solid rock when they were eroded. Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters. Would you like me to show you?
Again and again, all your presumptions are based upon the false concept that all things are the same as they once were, and continue the same as they always have. This you believe and propagate against the direct and plain testimony of the word of God, even addressing exactly what you are doing. You have placed your own understanding above the word if God, and are hopelessly deceived because of this.
2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
You are one of the scoffers Peter was referring to of the last days. You preach that all things have remained as they were in your false model of God's creation over millions of years, so that you can observe and figure out just how it happened in contradiction to the plain testimony of scripture. You deny the flood, because your precious evolution cannot be true if it really happened.
Tell us, since the flood didn't happen, do you believe the rest of what Peter said was going happen in the future is really going to happen? Or do you deny this testimony in the word of God also? Just how much of God's word needs to be trashed according to your own understanding?
: AVZ Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 06:04:36
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
Indeed, and with our Omnipotent God it could all be done in less than 24 hours.
: 4WD Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 07:13:44
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective
You are not serving the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for whom nothing is impossible including the Great Delusion e promised to send, the very thing a part of is being discussed here? And Jesus taught us, "Except you believe!"
: The Barbarian Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 22:10:07
You're off by a little over 1600 years. The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.
All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.
While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
: th1b.taylor Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 15:39:13
You are not serving the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for whom nothing is impossible including the Great Delusion e promised to send, the very thing a part of is being discussed here? And Jesus taught us, "Except you believe!"
It is strange indeed to find such arrogance in such ignorance. Or perhaps not. Do you really think that God would so completely distort the science He Himself created? I think not. The question here to me is clearly whether God actually needs the distortion and delusion that you seem to perceive in order that His faithful would remain so. Again, I think not. But perhaps it is not God who requires such distortion and delusion in order that you can believe.
: th1b.taylor Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 16:01:20And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
And it is probably a good thing they didn't since you don't really have a clue about what either theory is; or for that matter even what "theory" means with regard to either.
Again and again, all your presumptions are based upon the false concept that all things are the same as they once were, and continue the same as they always have.
God made the rules. He doesn't change. If you have to assume things not in scripture to make your point, isn't that something for you to think about?
If you would accept God's word as it is, without adding anything to it, all of your difficulties would be gone. Worth a try?
Instead of scoffing at God's creation, just accept it as it is.
Tell us, since the flood didn't happen
What makes you think there wasn't a flood? Turns out, there was a huge flood in the Middle East about the right time. It covered a huge area, drowning settlements, pastures and covering mountains. It's now known as the Black Sea. Was that Noah's Flood, or is the story entirely a parable? It doesn't matter. What matters is what God was telling you in that story. Listen to the point. It doesn't matter at all whether or not there was a Good Samaritan in the literal sense. What matters is the lesson. Pay attention to that.
Let God be God and do it His way, not yours.
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
You should have learned from that. The Bible isn't about science, and science can't tell you what God tells you. Listen to Him, accept it His way, and stop trying to fit scripture into your own wishes.
: 4WD Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 07:13:44
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective
As far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, there is no proof that desert conditions formed the layers. In fact the same layers are found globally over different continents, also in countries without desert conditions.
Burial of fossils always happens in a short time, it cannot be done over a long time.
There is no evidence of corrosion between layers, which is a real problem for science.
Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 08:09:10
In the Snake River canyon, shown above, there are deserts and forests at different levels in the rock along with animal burrows, insect hives, etc. Seems unlikely that those would have had time to appear in flood deposits being laid down and then be covered during a year-long flood. How do you suppose that happened?
Nope. Never does. Sudden erosion never meanders. Those are almost kilometer-high banks. They were solid rock when they were eroded. Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters. Would you like me to show you?
How deep do you say Snake River Canyon is, kilometer high banks?
2 Peter 3:3
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
1) Peter warns us that men will come and claim that everything goes on the way it has always been. That is not true.
2) These men will do so deliberately, ignoring Gods Word. The earth being formed by water.
3) God will destroy the world in a day, impossible according to the scientists
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
: 4WD Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 07:13:44
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Maa_V3_GQA
: KiwiChristian Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:30:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Maa_V3_GQA
Ken Hovind ?? rofl rofl rofl
Have you read anything about him? Even the AnswersinGenesis folks think he is a sham. He compared the Grand Canyon to a farmers pond in Tennessee. He's a joke. His geology credentials should give it away. His credentials in any science should give it away.
: AVZ Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:28:154) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 06:37:01
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
Within 48 hours:
Then the LORD God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant.
But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered.Within 24 hours
The next day Moses entered the tent and saw that Aaron's staff, which represented the tribe of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds.DO you have issues with the term "day" in either of the above accounts...or is it only in Genesis where you dispute the term "day"?
: AVZ Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 07:13:08DO you have issues with the term "day" in either of the above accounts...or is it only in Genesis where you dispute the term "day"?
And how about you?
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. How many hours in that day? 24? 144? And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"? 24? 0? Not even measurable in physical earth time?
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 07:32:40
And how about you?
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
How many hours in that day? 24? 144? And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"? 24? 0? Not even measurable in physical earth time?
Yeah, predictable response. You pretend not to see the difference between Genesis 1 & 2?
: AVZ Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:00:13
Yeah, predictable response. You pretend not to see the difference between Genesis 1 & 2?
Yeah I do see the difference. And in neither case is "day" speaking about a 24-hour day as we measure hours and days. You like to insist on a literal reading concerning Genesis, the creation, the garden etc. What is the literal reading of Genesis 3:24?
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:08:46
Yeah I do see the difference. And in neither case is "day" speaking about a 24-hour day as we measure hours and days. You like to insist on a literal reading concerning Genesis, the creation, the garden etc. What is the literal reading of Genesis 3:24?
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
: AVZ Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:18:46
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
And where is the garden and that angel now? Where God put them?
As far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, there is no proof that desert conditions formed the layers.
There are deserts buried in some layers. How do we know this? We have cross-bedded dunes hardened into stones, and burrows of desert organisms. In other layers there are buried forests. How, in one year, did deserts and forests have time to develop in "flood sediments?'
Burial of fossils always happens in a short time, it cannot be done over a long time.
It's happening about a mile from where I live. Upright trees flooded by a dam decades ago, are slowly being buried in layers of sediment. If the area later dries out, we'll have slowly-produced polystrate fossils.
There is no evidence of corrosion between layers,
No, that's wrong, too. The deserts, for example, have sand-worn stones and cross-bedded dunes from eroded rock.
Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.
Recently, argon/argon testing accurately dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii.
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
http://www.pompeiana.org/News/1997/08_28_97%20-%20Precise%20dating%20of%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pompeii%20proves%20argon-argon%20method%20can%20reliably%20date%20rocks%20as%20young%20as%202,000%20years.htm
So you're wrong about that, too.
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:38:48
And where is the garden and that angel now? Where God put them?
How does that matter? Even if anyone knew where it was, you couldn't go there because the angel wouldn't allow you.
Anyway, being part of creation the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood.
: AVZ Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 10:33:47How does that matter? Even if anyone knew where it was, you couldn't go there because the angel wouldn't allow you.
Anyway, being part of creation the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood.
I know you didn't intend it, but that was actually funny.
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 07:32:40
And how about you?
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
How many hours in that day? 24? 144? And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"? 24? 0? Not even measurable in physical earth time?
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one. Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
Actually, it was not an angel, it was angels:
Genesis 3:24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Apparently, they had to share the sword.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 17:18:11
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one. Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.
Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light. You just consider that explanation absurd because you choose to reject it.
Christians never saw Genesis as a parable, until centuries later some of them caved in to the atheist theory of evolution.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 17:18:11
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one. Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.
But He qualifies what He said. The morning and the evening were THE first day.
God did not tell us to work thousands of years and have a thousand years off.
Context, context, context
Time does not exist in God's economy.
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. "The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History". (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).
Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.
Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?)
Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).
The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a "Tertiary" lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)? Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267.
Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination. Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.
Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, "A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia's Institute of Geology: "If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears."" Why did Professor Amanniyazov assume dinosaur extinction 150 million years ago as absolutely certainty? Why did he not consider the alternative position of dinosaurs living with man recently? The fact that dinosaur and human footprints have been found in the same rock strata proves that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
This is a great problem to evolutionists who believe that dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years ago. Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs died out 67 million years before man appeared. These footprints prove that:
a) Man and dinosaur lived at the same time, and b) The evolutionary geological column is completely wrong in its dating of rocks.
The evidence for these tracks being genuine are:
i) The tracks of man and dinosaur are widely distributed from Turkestan to Texas.
ii) The tracks are mostly exposed by bulldozers or erosion.
iii) Two Palaeontologists have pronounced them genuine:
- Dr. Camp of the University of California, and
- Dr. G. Westcott of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
iv) The associated dinosaur tracks are accepted as valid.
v) Some prints have ridges of mud pushed up around them.
vi) Upon sawing through the footprints, the rock particles underneath are more compressed than particles surrounding the prints. Source: "Scientific American", A.G. Ingalls: "The Carboniferous Mystery" 162 (1940), page 14. See R.L. Wysong "The Creation-Evolution Controversy", p.373
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.
Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars, and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.
Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.This implies a young universe.
Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth's oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.
Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun's heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).
Jupiter's Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike, having the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. Evolution claims that all planets were molten 5 billion years ago and volcanic activity stopped 4 billion years ago as they cooled. The moons Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and many impact craters. Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has 7 active volcanoes and no impact craters. Titan has volcanoes.
Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (4) have rings, which could not survive 4 billion years. Jupiter's intense magnetic field radiation would sweep out its rings. (Bradford Smith, a Voyager Scientist).
Venus' high temperature and little erosion, imply a young age for Venus. If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.
Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes, as well as month-long dust storms. Several thousand years of this weather would have seriously eroded these edges and its strong colour differences. Powerful solar UV radiation would have long ago broken down the small amount of water, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere and hydrogen into space. Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen, but measurements show the opposite being some surface water and very little atmospheric oxygen.
Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.
Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth's surface, never being found in the rock strata. If earth were 5 billion years old, we would find many meteorite craters in the sedimentary rock strata, but we don't. Thus all meteorites which have struck the earth, have hit it in the last 5000 years.
Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years age for oil wells, and implies an age for oil of around 10,000 years. Oil, coal and gas were formed during the Great Flood 4,400 years ago (in 2418BC).
Earth's Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially."Popular Lectures and Addresses"(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415). If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).
Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates
Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor at least 60 miles thick. However, the average depth of sediment on the ocean floor is about 800 metres, and the continents have not eroded once yet. The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence, sea floors seem young.
Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them. Unless man cuts them down, they never seem to die. 17 Bristlecone pines are dated about 4,000 years old. Since the Flood occurred about 2,418 BC, this implies that:
a) all the pre-Flood Sequoias and Bristlecones were wiped out by the Flood, and b) there is no record of any living tree older than the Flood.
Man's Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution's 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 years.
: KiwiChristian Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 15:54:14And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
Actually it doesn't say THE first day. Verse 5 uses the cardinal number:
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Only subsequently are the ordinals second, third, fourth, etc., used. Some biblical scholars attach a significance to that, but I won't bother.
[quote[Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light.[/quote]
That won't work. "Morning" doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky." It means "When the sun comes up." Evening doesn't mean "light goes away." It means "when the sun goes down."
Ah, the Gish Gallop. "Toss out as many fake ideas as possible, and maybe they won't have time to debunk all of them. So we'll start at the top...
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. "The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History". (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).
So you're saying that before we had written records, we have no written records of eclipses? If you thought about it for a bit, you could probably figure out why.
Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.
So writing was invented a few thousand year ago, and therefore...? What?
Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?)
No confirmation? But suppose coal could somehow form in a few hundred years. Wouldn't change anything in evolution. BTW, we have found objects and human bodies in peat thousands of years old, so we know that at least some coal takes a very, very long time to form.
Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).
Can't find any records of it. There have been a lot of hoaxes, but none with any demonstration that the article was really found in situ.
Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination. Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.
Interesting thing is, it was loose aggregation, and was the same pollen as could be found in much younger strata a few yards higher on the cliff. Not long ago, a YE creationist from an Adventist university went to check out the story:
A total of fifty samples from the same strata which Burdick had studied were processed. All slides were completely scanned. No single example of an authentic pollen grain was obtained from any of these samples. In fact, the slides produced from the Hakatai Formation were in most cases completely free from any material of biologic origin, modern or fossil.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/pollen/eng/index.html
Mind you, that's a YE creationist talking.
Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, "A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia's Institute of Geology: "If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears.""
That one has been tried here in the United States. The "Paluxy Man Tracks" story depends on the way erosion can make dinosaur tracks look human:
Confronted with these findings, a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.'' A movie incorporating the disputed tracks, ''Footprints in Stone,'' produced by the Films for Christ Association, has been withdrawn from circulation as a document in support of divine creation. 5-Year Investigation What specialists in dinosaur studies have reported finding are clear traces of dinosaur toes associated with the so-called ''man tracks'' along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Tex., southwest of Fort Worth. The discovery was described by scientists who visited the site early this month and reviewed the results of a five-year investigation of the tracks by Glen J. Kuban, an expert on dinosaur footprints.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
You've been misled about that. There are some of them forming about a mile from my house. No palentologist says that it took millions of years to form. The trees near my home have been about 1/4 buried in less than 40 years.
Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.
Star clusters are very small compared to galaxies. And they do indeed "evaporate" over time, as individual stars gain enough kinetic energy to escape them. Doesn't happen much in galaxies, though. The massive gravitation of billions of stars make it very difficult for a star to reach escape velocity.
Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big.
Supergiants do indeed form and explode in a very short time, relative to the Sun. But they do last for millions of years, not billions. We still see them forming, and now and then we see one explode.
Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now.
In the universe, the great mass of hydrogen is not in stars, but in clouds of gas. There are still stars being made as these clouds collapse. Our sun is burning up hydrogen at a rate that will deplete it in about 4.5 billion years.
Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth's oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.
In 1987, several astronomers from Paris Observatory made an announcement regarding the size of the Sun that astonished their colleagues (Kippenhahn, R., 1994, pg. 163). They claimed that solar eclipse data from 1666 to 1719 showed that the Sun was 2000 kilometers larger than it is today. This amounts to a 0.3 percent reduction; and the time period, which roughly corresponds to the Maunder Minimum, seemed to be more than coincidental. However, this data was found to contain an error regarding the 1715 solar eclipse path of totality. Consequently, the Sun was the same size in 1716 as it is today, and astronomers were reassured.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun's heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.
You've been misled here, too. We have now observed that there are a huge number of potential comets orbiting the Sun out beyond Pluto. Every now and then, one of them is disturbed, and falls toward the sun in a highly elliptical orbit. So new ones are constantly being produced as old ones eventually evaporate or hit the sun.
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).
The rings are largely empty space, and it would be a lucky meteor indeed that happened to hit a rock in one of the rings. But Saturn does capture many meteoroids and incorporate them into the rings.
Jupiter's Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike,
Moons don't evolve. But they can form in a number of different ways, and their mass, distance from a planet, and type of formation will make a big difference in their characteristics.
Moons that are not big enough to have tectonic movement (or to have a huge planet gravitationally squeezing them) will not have volcanoes.
d little erosion, imply a young age for Venus.
Venus is eroded.
If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.
Venus has tectonic activity, so your assumption is wrong.
Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes
Probes have shown only worn structures, except for a few meteorite craters that are relatively recent.
Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen
It predicts no such thing. If you doubt this, show us where Darwin's theory predicted this. Science would predict that in the lack of photosynthesis, there would be little free oxygen. Do you see why?
Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.
The Roche Limit (closest a moon can be to a planet without being torn apart by gravity) is about 18,400 km. The moon is about 384,000 km away so the moon could have receded no more than 365600 km, or 36,560,000,000 centimeters. At less than 4 cm a year, that would take about 9.1 billion years. So no problem for an ancient Earth there.
Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth's surface, never being found in the rock strata.
No, that's false:
The geologic record contains at least 130 positively identified "fossil" craters. They are preserved in all the major strata from the Precambrian (2 billion years ago) to Recent times. The following partial list, Chicxulub excepted, is from R. A. F. Grieve and P. B. Robertson (1979). Since then many more fossil craters have been found, but a portion of their 1979 list will do just fine. With one exception, all of those listed are larger than Meteor Crater in Arizona.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/meteor.html
As you see, these objections wither in the light of evidence. More tomorrow.
Hey, Barbarian, I have to say, I do admire your patience.
Hey, Barbarian, I have to say, I do admire your patience.
I was a teacher. I learned patience the hard way.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 13:07:46
[quote[Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light.
That won't work. "Morning" doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky." It means "When the sun comes up." Evening doesn't mean "light goes away." It means "when the sun goes down."
That statement is not defendable. How about parts of the globe where during specific seasons the sun does not come up? Are you saying there is no morning?
We connect morning, afternoon and night to specific events, but if we were to take those events away we still divide days into their respective parts.
Genesis doesn't make that claim. God made light, and He called the light day...and the dark He called night.
God created the sun at a later stage, and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.
The mere question that needs to be answered is: Can God create something that has no source?
If you insist that light could only exist if it had a source; the sun...then how could God create a complete universe from nothing? Where did the source material come from?
How about God Himself? He has no source either.
Why is is so difficult for you to accept the existence of God without a source, a universe without a source...and yet reject the existence of light without a source?
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 06:37:01
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
if they were NOT 24 hours, YOU tell US how long it was.
also, how long did the plants survive without light? 24 hours they can cope with. thousands of years? nope.
: KiwiChristian Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 23:35:17
if they were NOT 24 hours, YOU tell US how long it was.
also, how long did the plants survive without light? 24 hours they can cope with. thousands of years? nope.
First of all, it is not just light for illumination, but the also important aspect of heat and warmth. Without the sun, the earth would be pretty chilly, chilly enough to freeze the water, at least at the surface, and everything else in seconds.
I can give you a good estimate, based upon relativity, of how long each day was. But I suspect you would neither understand nor be convinced.
But if you really are interested, go here:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=rab
The thesis of this article is that both billions of years and six 24-hour days, when day is viewed from God's perspective at the beginning, are correct. It deals with the effects of the space-time considerations of the expansion of the universe.
That statement is not defendable. How about parts of the globe where during specific seasons the sun does not come up?
I can't believe you're serious. If clouds diffuse the sunlight, you think people don't call it morning? Seriously?
Are you saying there is no morning?
That's what you seem to be saying.
We connect morning, afternoon and night to specific events,
Specifically, morning is at sunrise, evening is at sunset. That's how it's done.
God created the sun at a later stage
Which is why Christians realized that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories.
and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.
The mere question that needs to be answered is: Can God create something that has no source?
No, the question is: "Does it make sense to have mornngs and evenings with no sun? As Christians have said, no, it doesn't.
(Straw man alert)
Why is is so difficult for you to accept the existence of God without a source, a universe without a source...and yet reject the existence of light without a source?
Your new doctrine, you need to handle it.
: 4WD Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 06:37:01
Quote from: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:28:15
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
: Michael2012 Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:06:30Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
What is a day, scripturally? Is a day the period of daylight? 24 hours? 144 hours (Genesis 2:4)? a really long time? an era? How long is the day in Genesis 2:2?
Finishing up the Gish Gallop attempt:
Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened.
Actually, it happened almost everywhere, except where thick and completely impermeable formations domed over the gas and oil. In those rare cases, the oil and gas pooled under great pressure and are still there. Notice that the ground above such formations does not have oil and gas seeping up, unless there was a crack in the formation. Where there isn't an impermeable cap, we do see petroleum rising to the surface. So that won't work, either.
Earth's Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially."Popular Lectures and Addresses"(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415). If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).
Turns out the amount of radiation is precisely the amount needed for observed heat flux in the Earth. In fact, when radiation was discovered, Lord Kelvin agreed that his calculations were invalid. But even if they weren't you wouldn't get any comfort from them. Kelvin figured that it would have had to be something like 10 million years for a molten Earth to get to this point.
Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates
Turns out, these radiohaloes don't form unless there are deposits of uranium close by. And that's important, because, it establishes that the polonium was from decay of uranium.
Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is produced continuously in the decay of the parent uranium. Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 ; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Moreover, Gentry's argument depends on his assumption that the granite is "primordial rock" created in situ. But the granite is intrusive, from lava that flowed into faults in sedimentary rock, which would have to be older than the granite. And that also rules out Gentry's assumption.
Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times.
Would have, if plate tectonics was not building new continental crust. But we observe this happening in many places around the world. Likewise, seafloor is observed to be subducted under the continents, destroying those sediments in the mantle. And new seafloor is being produced at mid-oceanic ridges. This is why sediments in the Atlantic ocean are brand new at the mid-Atlantic ridge and many millions of years old at the continental shelves.
Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them.
No, that's wrong:
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr151/psw_gtr151_13_piirto.pdf
And one famous one had weakened to that it had only one living branch left. It recently fell and died.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/09/508919216/iconic-sequoia-tunnel-tree-brought-down-by-california-storm
And why do it with trees? Why not just find the oldest human and claim that proves a young Earth?
Man's Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC?
So you're claiming that the fact that we have no written records prior to the invention of writing, means the Earth is young? Seriously?
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
God is truth. The "appearance of age" argument assumes God to be deceptive. So not credible.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 08:52:11
I can't believe you're serious. If clouds diffuse the sunlight, you think people don't call it morning? Seriously?
That's what you seem to be saying.
Specifically, morning is at sunrise, evening is at sunset. That's how it's done.
Which is why Christians realized that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories.
and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.
No, the question is: "Does it make sense to have mornngs and evenings with no sun? As Christians have said, no, it doesn't.
(Straw man alert)
Your new doctrine, you need to handle it.
You are completely turning my post upside down.
You said "Morning means when the sun comes up" and "Evening means when the sun goes down".
My challenge to you is: in places where the sun does not come up in the morning, are you therefore claiming that there is no morning in those places?
Similarly, there are times in the year in some places where the sun does not go under...hence you claim those people there do not have evenings?
You say that is does not make sense to have mornings and evenings without the sun.
I disagree, mornings, noons, evenings and nights are expressions of a time period.
Let's say a blind person asks you what time it is, would you say "what does it matter to you? It's night".
Of course not. Even a blind person who does not experiences light knows time, and mornings and evenings.
In Genesis the term day and night are related to light and dark.
When the light was on, it was day and when the light was off, it was night. Thats the terminology used.
Mornings and evenings existed before the sun was created.
The whole crux of the matter is, can God have created light without creating a sun (the source). I say yes. Light is made of particles, the same as everything else in the universe is made of.
God does not need a source to display its effect.
We see that in Exodus when God calls Moses. The burning bush that burned but had no source for fire.
We also see that in Acts, where there is the sound of a wind...yet there was no wind to make that sound.
You are simply saying that Genesis is incorrect because ONLY the sun can account for light (or dark).
I am saying that that's not true, God could have easily woven light particles together at the start of creation as He wove the particles together that make up all matter of which the rest of creation exists.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:42:49
God is truth. The "appearance of age" argument assumes God to be deceptive. So not credible.
God is truth. I agree.
The rest I'd say I'd respect as your opinion. And we all have different opinions. But what are your answers to the questions:
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
You are completely turning my post upside down.
Don't see how. Your argument seems to be that if it's cloudy, the sun doesn't come up. People have always known better.
My challenge to you is: in places where the sun does not come up in the morning, are you therefore claiming that there is no morning in those places?
So far, the sun has always come up wherever there is morning. Even if it's obscured by clouds, it comes up. And people have always known this.
Similarly, there are times in the year in some places where the sun does not go under...
Hebrews were completely unaware of that, but yes, in polar regions, They refer to those as days without an evening.
hence you claim those people there do not have evenings?
So they say. When I lived a lot farther north, my parents would say in the summer, "be home by evening", and that meant sundown, even if it was 9:00.
You say that is does not make sense to have mornings and evenings without the sun.
Yep. That's how language works.
I disagree
Doesn't matter. Words mean things. And usage determines meanings. If you have a private definition, it changes nothing.
You are simply saying that Genesis is incorrect
I'm saying Genesis is correct and you are wrong.
Because only the sun can account for mornings and evenings.
I am saying that that's not true
Doesn't matter. Language is what it is.
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Only God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:33:06
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Nobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:33:06
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
So, can you tell me, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what of nature did God initially created that developed into the Adam that the Bible said God created? Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:33:06
Michael said:
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Only God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created. Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be? And what God have created instantly as he intended them to be and need not go through the process of evolution?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:33:06
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
You really have very little esteem for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Let me share a secret with you...I have yet to meet a single Christian who is deceived and believes Adam and Eve were created as one day old babies.
What I am saying is that every Christian who believes that God created a fully functioning and mature universe, realizes and acknowledges that this is not deception on God's part.
The only person who considers it to be deception is you.
So I would say the following.
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
The only deception is then any theory that denies or rejects a seven day creation and/or it's sequence as stated in scripture.
On top of that, anyone who denies and rejects the accounts listed in Genesis would then label the Bible as deceptive and misleading.
You really have very little esteem for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
So long as they acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, I esteem them as my brothers in Christ. YE creationism is an error, but it doesn't cost you your salvation. It's just a mistake, and YE creationists, unless they abandon essential Christian belief, are no less Christian than the rest of us. Sometimes, both sides forget this, but we should never forget it.
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
Of course they are. They just aren't the way YE creationists have revised them.
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Barbarian observes:
I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
So, can you tell me, according to your knowledge of things, of science
I can tell you from scripture.
what of nature did God initially created that developed into the Adam that the Bible said God created?
God says that He created Adam's body from pre-existing creation, as he did with the other animals, but then directly gave him a soul. Particularly, He says he made man a living soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
God says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
No, obviously not. God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body. (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)
Barbarian observes:
Only God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created.
That's what He says in Genesis.
Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly
Initially, it seems, there was only energy. This is why atheists were initially so opposed to the Big Bang. It's as though someone said "let there be light."
and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?
The Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation. We do know some of the details of what happened after life started. What would you like to know?
The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work. Everything else in this world changes.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.
: 4WD Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 15:36:42
It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.AMEN to that. And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.
I personally do not know if evolution of species is true. I've not seen any convincing evidence of it. When I ask others for evidence, I get unjustified claims, and/or scientific jargon that I just don't understand. When I ask for an explanation, I get, "well, I don't understand it either, but that's what the science says, so it must be true". Well, If I am going to believe something, I'm going to require evidence...not just any evidence, but evidence I understand...evidence that convinces me that it is true. I do believe, without doubt, that God created everything. If it turns out that evolution is true, I have no problem with it; I can quite easily see evolution fitting into the context of the Bible without any manipulation whatsoever. The same is true with regard to the "6 days of creation". Surely God is capable of having created the heavens and the earth in just six 24 hour days. And He may have. But there is nothing written in the Bible to suggest that they were indeed six literal 24 hour days being referred to.
I like definitions. I think the meanings of words are important. I realize that a single word can have various meanings and connotations depending on the context, and of course the intent of the author.
According to a real definition for the word day, a day is "a time of prominence".
day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence
- the interval of light between two successive nights
- a time of light
Day - definition of Day by The Free Dictionary
The Bible tells us, whether literal or metaphoric we can only speculate, that God is light. If God is present, creating, it is day. If he takes a step back and removes His presence, it is as night.
You are correct; there is no human being who can set in stone for us God's intended meaning when He inspired the author of the first chapter of Genesis to write of the mornings and evenings of the days of God's creation. But we can have a look at the definitions and we can see what the possibilities are.
We find:
morning - The first or early part; the beginning
morning - definition of morning by The Free Dictionary
evening - A later period or time
evening - definition of evening by The Free Dictionary
Every time God was present it was day. When He was beginning His work for the day, it was morning. When He was finishing with His work for the day, it was evening. And God saw that it was good. "...And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)
Following Christ
I personally do not know if evolution of species is true. I've not seen any convincing evidence of it. When I ask others for evidence, I get unjustified claims, and/or scientific jargon that I just don't understand.
Most creationist organizations now acknowledge the fact of speciation. Most acknowledge higher taxa developing from others, perhaps new genera or families. As I understand it, scientists see a single bush with many branches, while most creationists see a series of independent bushes with few branches.
(https://ncse.com/files/images/NeoCreo_Orchard.img_assist_custom.jpg)
(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/cms/content/contentnode/header_image/speciation.jpg)
When I ask for an explanation, I get, "well, I don't understand it either, but that's what the science says, so it must be true". Well, If I am going to believe something, I'm going to require evidence...not just any evidence, but evidence I understand...evidence that convinces me that it is true.
Here's what evolutionary theory says:
Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than it's fellows.
3. Some of these differences affect the chances of an organism living long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with favorable differences tend to leave more offspring.
5. Each generation, the changes accumulate,and explain the diversity of life.
Genetics, neutralist theories, and punctuated equilibrium have modified his ideas, but these five basic ones remain.
Linnaeus, not aware of evolution produced a tree of living things, a nested hierarchy of life:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Haeckel_arbol_bn.png)
The remarkable thing is that DNA tests of the sort that determine paternity and ancestry, produce something very, very close to the tree Linnaeus drew. That's one key point.
The other key point, is that such trees suggest transitional forms. And over time, we have found the predicted forms. What's more important is that we have never found a transitional where there shouldn't be one, according to evolutionary theory.
There are now directly observed speciations, and while this is consistent with the creationist idea of evolution limited to "kinds", the existence of transitional forms between "kinds" is strong evidence for evolution.
There's more. Would you like to talk about it?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 18:03:07
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
Of course they are. They just aren't the way YE creationists have revised them.
Objection 1If indeed the account in Genesis is true as it is written down, then do you subscribe to the sequence of events:
- Light was created before the sun was created
- Land plants were created before sea creatures
- Birds were created before reptiles
- Mammals were created before insects
- Plants were created before the sun was created
- Earth was created before any other planet
Objection 2You say that leading the idea that the creation days are literal 24 hour day would be deceptive by God.
From the generation of Adam to the generations in approximately the 18th century, man did not have access to scientific data and the evolution theory.
Believers from the Jews in the Old Testament to the Christians in the 18th century believed in literal 24 hour creation days.
It is your claim that they were deceived and mislead by God?
Objection 3According to you morning and evening make sense only when there is a sun. The sun was created on the 4th day.
Is it therefore your conviction that at least day 4, 5 and 6 are literal 24 hour days since there is a literal morning and an evening in those days?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 22:49:39
Most creationist organizations now acknowledge the fact of speciation. Most acknowledge higher taxa developing from others, perhaps new genera or families. As I understand it, scientists see a single bush with many branches, while most creationists see a series of independent bushes with few branches.
I understand that many creationist organizations acknowledge that speciation occurs. And as I have said, while I don't know if it does occur, I do believe it is quite possible that it does occur. The point of my comment is not whether or not it is true, but that it really doesn't matter to me if it is true, because whether it is true or is not true is of no consequence to the God inspired Scriptures contained in the book of Genesis. What I do care about is not whether or not evolution is true, but why I should care if it is true? Of what consequence to me is evolution with regard to my walk with God? Of what consequence is it to me in my relationships with others? How does knowing the truth about evolution affect my life? Why should I care?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 22:49:39
Here's what evolutionary theory says:
Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than it's fellows.
3. Some of these differences affect the chances of an organism living long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with favorable differences tend to leave more offspring.
5. Each generation, the changes accumulate,and explain the diversity of life.
Genetics, neutralist theories, and punctuated equilibrium have modified his ideas, but these five basic ones remain.
Linnaeus, not aware of evolution produced a tree of living things, a nested hierarchy of life:
The remarkable thing is that DNA tests of the sort that determine paternity and ancestry, produce something very, very close to the tree Linnaeus drew. That's one key point.
The other key point, is that such trees suggest transitional forms. And over time, we have found the predicted forms. What's more important is that we have never found a transitional where there shouldn't be one, according to evolutionary theory.
There are now directly observed speciations, and while this is consistent with the creationist idea of evolution limited to "kinds", the existence of transitional forms between "kinds" is strong evidence for evolution.
There's more. Would you like to talk about it?
With regard to your numbered list, it resembles the start of most conversations I have with pretty much every person who feels the need to try to convince me that evolution is true. And as I had pointed out, they always begin with unsupported claims. Now I am not trying to suggest that these claims are not valid facts. I don't know. They could be facts? Your next step will be to provide something that resembles actual evidence for evolution, and what I expect to see is a few citations from various articles that make yet more claims about evolution, but claims that will lack actual evidence to support those claims. After that, you will likely then show very detailed scientific journals citing studies about genetics that both you and I don't understand. You will accept that evidence because it is in the name of science. I will reject it as evidence because I cannot be convinced by evidence that I don't understand, simply because some scientist, or even if all scientists agree that it is actual evidence that actually supports the claim it is intended to support.
You should understand that I already view evolution as reasonable. I see it as believable. And if I should see convincing evidence, I will certainly be convinced. But if I should spend time on this, can you tell me what the benefit will be? If God is my life, what is evolution to me?
Nevertheless, I'd be happy to talk about it.
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Barbarian said:
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Michael said:
Nobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.
Barbarian haven't given an answer.
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Barbarian said:
I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?
Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.
Now back to my question. Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Can you tell me what to you, that which comprise the universe that God created at an instant then, which in time this very created things evolved and developed to be what God intended it to be?
Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?
Michael said:
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
Barbarian said:
God says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.
So what is your answer to the question?
Michael said:
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
Barbarian said:
No, obviously not. God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body. (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)
What then do you and science say was God's initial creation which developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body?
Michael said:
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Barbarian said:
Only God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
Michael said:
I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created.
Barbarian said:
That's what He says in Genesis.
But then, in your take of creation, what creation we now see was not what God initially created. As such, at the time God created from out of nothing, He did not create much, if not all that you say evolved to be what things we now see to exist. And that these things then, even while you say that God created them, were actually not creation from out of nothing but came from the evolution of those that God created initially from nothing.
Michael said:
Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly
Barbarian said:
Initially, it seems, there was only energy. This is why atheists were initially so opposed to the Big Bang. It's as though someone said "let there be light."
So, it seems to you. And you don't know, in short. But then, you insist that, such is the case. Well....
And so, energy evolved into what is the universe and everything in it, including you and the rest of mankind. And since evolution continues, everything yet is not what God intended of that initially created energy to be it's final nature, form and shape. Well...
Michael said:
and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?
Barbarian said:
The Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation. We do know some of the details of what happened after life started. What would you like to know?
The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work. Everything else in this world changes.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.
I have been asking you what I'd like to know in connection with creation by evolution. But you apparently can't give an answer. All you gave was what seems to be according to you as can be seen in your answers above. I wonder why you ask me what I wanted to know still.
You cited Ecclesiastes 3:11 from where we are told that God made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration. And this, so that man cannot find out the work which God made from the beginning to the end. So, I wonder why, even while God, in scriptures, have pointed that out, you seem to believe what men, in their quest for what God says is impossible, theorize to explain the work which God made from the beginning to the end. And if man cannot find this out, what they come up with are certainly far from the truth, no matter how reasonable they may seem to you.
Objection 1
If indeed the account in Genesis is true as it is written down, then do you subscribe to the sequence of events:
- Light was created before the sun was created
The sun is a fairly recent star. Of course there was light before the sun.
Land plants were created before sea creatures
That's a problem only if you try to convert the parable into a literal history. But as Christians have always known, mornings and evenings without a sun make it clear that it is not a literal history.
Earth was created before any other planet
Genesis does not say that.
Objection 2
You say that leading the idea that the creation days are literal 24 hour day would be deceptive by God.
No, it's just man's attempt to remake Genesis into a form more acceptable to him.
From the generation of Adam to the generations in approximately the 18th century, man did not have access to scientific data and the evolution theory.
And yet, early Christians acknowledged that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories, even at the beginning.
Believers from the Jews in the Old Testament to the Christians in the 18th century believed in literal 24 hour creation days.
No, that's false. St. Augustine, for example, showed that the "yom" could not be literal days.
It is your claim that they were deceived and mislead by God?
It's my observation that the modern doctrine of YE creationism is a false one.
According to you morning and evening make sense only when there is a sun.
Words mean things. Unless you change the definition, you're pretty much stuck with the word as it is.
The sun was created on the 4th day.
Which is one reason we know the "days" of creation were not literal ones.
Is it therefore your conviction that at least day 4, 5 and 6 are literal 24 hour days since there is a literal morning and an evening in those days?
They aren't literal days. They are merely (as St. Augustine showed) categories of creation.
What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?
Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.
Read Genesis and learn. God created the universe with a word. But then it developed as He intended. He makes that very clear.
Now back to my question. Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
No, of course not. He says otherwise.
Can you tell me what to you, that which comprise the universe that God created at an instant then, which in time this very created things evolved and developed to be what God intended it to be?
His creation is continuing even now. Don't try to put a fence around God. Your sentence is not grammatically clear. Could you try again?
Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?
Do you think people are not creations of God? If so, His creation is continuing.
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
Barbarian observes:
God says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.
So what is your answer to the question?
God's word is good enough for me. It should be good enough for you.
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
Barbarian observes:
No, obviously not. God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body. (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)
What then do you and science say
Science is unable to say anything about God.
was God's initial creation which developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body?
God says it was light. I think that should be good enough for you, as a Christian.
But then, in your take of creation, what creation we now see was not what God initially created.
You and I, for example. We came later.
As such, at the time God created from out of nothing, He did not create much, if not all that you say evolved to be what things we now see to exist.
He says that light came first. Why would that be a problem for you?
And that these things then, even while you say that God created them, were actually not creation from out of nothing but came from the evolution of those that God created initially from nothing.
So He says.
Barbarian observes:
The Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation. We do know some of the details of what happened after life started. What would you like to know?
The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work. Everything else in this world changes.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.
I have been asking you what I'd like to know in connection with creation by evolution. But you apparently can't give an answer.
You got my answers. What you didn't get were answers you'd like. Sorry about that.
I get the feeling you're concerned about something that you can't quite put into words. I'm a very patient guy. Feel free to ask. I don't think we've quite made it to whatever is bothering you about creation.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 08:09:17
The sun is a fairly recent star. Of course there was light before the sun.
That's a problem only if you try to convert the parable into a literal history. But as Christians have always known, mornings and evenings without a sun make it clear that it is not a literal history.
Genesis does not say that.
No, it's just man's attempt to remake Genesis into a form more acceptable to him.
And yet, early Christians acknowledged that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories, even at the beginning.
No, that's false. St. Augustine, for example, showed that the "yom" could not be literal days.
It's my observation that the modern doctrine of YE creationism is a false one.
Words mean things. Unless you change the definition, you're pretty much stuck with the word as it is.
Which is one reason we know the "days" of creation were not literal ones.
They aren't literal days. They are merely (as St. Augustine showed) categories of creation.
Objection 1Either the chronology in Genesis is true, or the chronology of evolution is true.
You cannot support both because they are in opposition of each other.
Genesis most definitely states that earth was created before any other planet.
Objection 2It is a matter of historical record that the vast majority of believers believed in a literal 6-day creation.
To speak with your words, they were deceived and mislead by God.
Contrary to what you wish me to believe Augustine was NOT an old-earth creationist.
He never made the claim that "yom" could not be literal days and I invite you to show me where he made that claim.
In addition Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the genealogies in Genesis, and he believed in a global flood.
Augustine believed creation happened in an instant of time and there is no indication he thought that to be millions of years prior to Adam.
Augustine also believed in a direct creation of Adam, contrary to what you believe that Adam evolved from apes.
If you want to use Augustine in support of your claim, are you prepared to accept everything Augustine said about Genesis or only that which you like?
Objection 3You are not answering the question.
Since as of day 4 there were literal mornings and evenings because there was a sun, it would be illogical to declare these mornings and evenings to mean millions of years.
Additional objectionYou say that there was light prior to the creation of the sun. If indeed there was light, then there could also have been mornings and nights.
The morning would then be the time the globe would point in the direction of the light, and the night would then be the part of the globe that was in the shadow.
: AVZ Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 09:31:53Objection 1
Either the chronology in Genesis is true, or the chronology of evolution is true.
You cannot support both because they are in opposition of each other.
Genesis most definitely states that earth was created before any other planet.
I think if you really knew anything that evolution says about the chronology, you would find that they are nearly identical. Genesis never says anything about any other planet being created. And more than a few biblical scholars, particularly Hebrew scholars regard the reference to the heavens and the earth regard that as the figure of speech, i.e., a merism.
Objection 2
It is a matter of historical record that the vast majority of believers believed in a literal 6-day creation.
To speak with your words, they were deceived and mislead by God.
Those same believers also believed in a flat earth and an earth-centric universe.
Additional objection
You say that there was light prior to the creation of the sun. If indeed there was light, then there could also have been mornings and nights.
There was light billions of years before the sun formed. Most of the light in the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with evening and morning here on earth. Evening and morning as we see it from earth is the result solely of the one star, our sun, out of the billions upon billions, actually trillions upon trillions, of stars in the universe.
: 4WD Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 10:27:04
I think if you really knew anything that evolution says about the chronology, you would find that they are nearly identical. Genesis never says anything about any other planet being created. And more than a few biblical scholars, particularly Hebrew scholars regard the reference to the heavens and the earth regard that as the figure of speech, i.e., a merism.
Those same believers also believed in a flat earth and an earth-centric universe.
There was light billions of years before the sun formed. Most of the light in the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with evening and morning here on earth. Evening and morning as we see it from earth is the result solely of the one star, our sun, out of the billions upon billions, actually trillions upon trillions, of stars in the universe.
Objection 1Genesis says a whole lot about the heavenly bodies in the account of day 4.
God created two great lights, the sun and moon. However the moon is not a light...it reflects light. So do planets.
God also created stars, they do create light, yet the moon is not a star also.
So God created "lights" in the firmament as signs for seasons, days and years...those include the planets.
Example: Venus is the brightest planet in our solar system, we call it "morning star" and "evening star"...yet it is a planet and not a star.
Objection 2Strictly speaking, taking Barbarian's stance, you should therefore also declare the Psalms as deceptive.
Which just proves my point that those who reject Genesis always end up rejecting more parts of scripture as well.
So please feel free to declare the Psalms misleading if you wish
Objection 3You are describing a system in which there is a sun. If there is no sun then any other light giving source can function as a sun.
Again our sun is not a necessity to have mornings and evenings, all you need is a source of light.
: AVZ Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 11:39:20Objection 3
You are describing a system in which there is a sun. If there is no sun then any other light giving source can function as a sun.
Again our sun is not a necessity to have mornings and evenings, all you need is a source of light.
I have a flashlight, will that do?
Strictly speaking, taking Barbarian's stance, you should therefore also declare the Psalms as deceptive.
From a YE creationist POV, yes. But if you accept Genesis as it is, there is no such difficulty.
Which just proves my point that those who reject Genesis always end up rejecting more parts of scripture as well.
Not necessarily. There are YE creationists who do not accept many things in Genesis, but have no difficulty with the rest of the Bible. Feel free to show how you think Psalms would be misleading. It is true that the Psalms, like Genesis, often include figurative language and metaphors. Here's a good analysis of one of them:
Symbol Analysis
Psalm 23 has two major extended metaphors. The first is the analogy between the Lord (God) and a shepherd, a guy who herds sheep. An extended metaphor is just a metaphor that continues for more than just one line or phrase in the poem. It's woven throughout several lines, or sometimes the whole poem. The metaphor comparing the Lord to a shepherd appears in the first four lines of the psalm. The big point of the metaphor is that the Lord looks after and nurtures his flock, and the speaker is part of that flock.
You have to remember that shepherds were as common in ancient Israel as coffee shop baristas are in Brooklyn. To an ancient audience, a shepherd isn't this quaint, romantic wanderer that sometimes appears in later literature. It was a real – and very important – profession, though it wasn't a job that a rich person would normally do.
Psalm 23 ("The Lord is My Shepherd")
Line 1: You really couldn't ask for a metaphor to be more clearly spelled out. The Lord = shepherd. The speaker = sheep. Got it. This metaphor makes specific reference to the shepherd as provider of necessities, or "wants."
Lines 2: The metaphor of the sheep and shepherd is extended into the second line. Green pastures as a symbol of nourishment, because sheep eat grass, and also comfort, because the sheep is lying down. Still waters are also a symbol of nourishment, and also peace and tranquility. Just remember that the body of the sheep is implicitly analogized to the soul of the speaker. The Lord brings peace, comfort, and nourishment to the speaker's soul.
Line 3: In a very basic metaphor, righteousness is compared to a path. As a shepherd, the Lord keeps his flock on the right path. The Lord's "name" might be a symbol for reputation.
https://www.shmoop.com/psalm-23/shepherd-symbol.html
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 19:02:18
It is true that the Psalms, like Genesis, often include figurative language and metaphors.
There is absolutely no reason to read the creation story in Genesis as a metaphorical account of events.
It is not written as a poem, and even the use of language and grammar do in no shape or form indicate anything else but a normal, historical description of events.
The only reason why one would insist that the creation story is metaphorical is to try and fit evolution into the story.
Genesis 1 and 2 are in complete opposition to evolution. Unfortunately there are people that seem to think our understanding of Genesis is defective and it needs to be fixed.
Evolution is assumed to be truth, and Gods Word must be altered to fit the assumption.
Do you know how many times Genesis had to be altered in history, or how many times scripture contradict a literal understanding of Genesis? Zero!
Do you know how many times the evolution theory had to be altered in history, or how many times science contradicts her own claims? Numerous times and continuously so!
: 4WD Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 12:14:25
I have a flashlight, will that do?
Certainly. Alternatively you can use your dazzling personality or bright insights.
Have any of you evolutionists had your DNA checked by Ancestry.Com or some other service? If so, did Hominid, Atapuerca, or Neanderthal show up in your backgrounds?
: AVZ Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 22:56:49Certainly. Alternatively you can use your dazzling personality or bright insights.
Why thank you. I didn't realize you thought of me in that light -- pun intended.
Barbarian,
Thank you for being a very patient guy. And so, I'll go on and continue to ask. And I also know that you are an intelligent guy and so I believe that you know what I am trying to point out with regards your theory of creation by evolution. So, if you can just not be evasive in your answers and address my questions with direct to the point answers, I would gratefully appreciate that.
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Barbarian said:
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Michael said:
Nobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.
Can you tell me your view on Adam and Eve in connection to your theory that man was created by evolution? Was Adam, in your understanding of scriptures, the first and only created man by evolution at the Genesis account? Was Eve then later created by evolution to be the first and only woman at the Genesis account?
: notreligus Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 00:05:16
Have any of you evolutionists had your DNA checked by Ancestry.Com or some other service? If so, did Hominid, Atapuerca, or Neanderthal show up in your backgrounds?
Were Hominids, Atapuerca or Neaderthals human? What is human?
Michael said:
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Barbarian said:
I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
Michael said:
What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?
Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.
Barbarian said:
Read Genesis and learn. God created the universe with a word. But then it developed as He intended. He makes that very clear.
And so, having read Genesis 1, verse 1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Genesis does not say that God created the universe with a word. In verse 2, it says of the earth that God have created from the beginning, that it was without form, and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. Is that not the initial creation? Is that what you say God created in an instant and by His words? Please tell me your view regarding this.
In the next verses, we see God forming the earth that was said to be without form, and filling that which was said to be void. In short we see that the account of the creative work of God in Genesis speaks of God establishing the form (design) and order of things of the earth, and creating living things and creatures, including man, whom God said is such living creature created in His image. And He have done all of these, by His word. And this I view, that when God have spoken, such as when He said "Let there be light", at an instant, there was light. And that is how God did His work in the Genesis account. I don't see creation by evolution in these part of the Genesis account.
Michael said:
Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?
Barbarian said:
Do you think people are not creations of God? If so, His creation is continuing.
But I am not referring to creation by reproduction which God commanded of man, but to creation by evolution that which you speak about. So, if the evolution continue in the human, are we then not yet God's intended human creation? So, when will God stop the evolution of man? If you can't answer that, perhaps you can tell me your guess as to what human God intended to create which will somehow sometime be accomplished at the end of the evolution of the human?
Reproduction does not constitute creation. Reproduction is a physical process. Evolution does not constitute creation either. Evolution is also a physical process. There is a distinction to be made between what God created [ex nihilo] and what God made from something else.
Michael said:
What then do you and science say was God's initial creation which developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body?
Barbarian said:
God says it was light. I think that should be good enough for you, as a Christian.
Did God said it was light that He initially created? And did God said that this light evolved and developed to land, water, living things, and man's physical make up? I don't see that in scriptures. And that makes scripture then telling us that Adam and Eve came about from light, evolving through time.
As a Christian, I say that, the account in Genesis 1 is what is good enough for me. And it does not say that God initially created light and let it evolve and develop to land, water, living things, and man's physical make up, and all.
: 4WD Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 08:31:40
Reproduction does not constitute creation. Reproduction is a physical process. Evolution does not constitute creation either. Evolution is also a physical process. There is a distinction to be made between what God created [ex nihilo] and what God made from something else.
Would you say that God created you? If so, how did He?
There may be a distinction, but still it is called creation of God.
: Michael2012 Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 08:48:38Would you say that God created you? If so, how did He?
There may be a distinction, but still it is called creation of God.
No God did not create me, at least not my physical body. He didn't create Adam's physical body either. Adam's body was formed of the dust of the earth in whatever manner God chose to do that. God did create the system whereby living things are the result of procreation. If there is any creation involved in the human being, it is the spirit of man. And it is that which is in the image of God.
The distinction between what God creates [ex nihilo] and what God makes from some existing stuff is an important distinction.
: 4WD Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 09:08:02
No God did not create me, at least not my physical body. He didn't create Adam's physical body either. Adam's body was formed of the dust of the earth in whatever manner God chose to do that. God did create the system whereby living things are the result of procreation. If there is any creation involved in the human being, it is the spirit of man. And it is that which is in the image of God.
The distinction between what God creates [ex nihilo] and what God makes from some existing stuff is an important distinction.
You will not be able to support your claim. You will have to prove that this universe will continue by itself if God would step out completely.
Would the physical processes still function if God does not sustain them?
You claim that living things are the result of procreation, but if it is God who gives life, would procreation still be able to produce new life if God stops giving it?
Scripture seems to indicate that creation cannot continue by itself and Gods involvement is an absolutely necessity.
The other issue is of course that if God knows every person every born, and if God knows their coming and their going, and if God knows all the days of our lives...than there cannot be more people born then God wills, and neither can there be less people born than God wills.
The whole process of "being" and "becoming" will therefore be only if God wills.
The best thing you can come up with is a physical process that is totally dependent on God's participation.
Yes, God created Adam from dust, but what made Adam a living being? Was it the dust or was it God's breath?
Furthermore, if God did not create Adam's physical body...then who did? Is dead dust able to create a physical body by itself?
: AVZ Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 10:35:44
You will have to prove that this universe will continue by itself if God would step out completely.
Why would I have to prove that this universe will continue by itself if God would step out completely? I never made such a stupid claim. That idiocy is your creation -- again pun intended.
: AVZ Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 10:35:44Yes, God created Adam from dust, but what made Adam a living being? Was it the dust or was it God's breath?
Furthermore, if God did not create Adam's physical body...then who did? Is dead dust able to create a physical body by itself?
No, Adam wasn't "created" from dust. God said, to Adam, that
"from it [the ground] you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return".
Do you really not know and understand the difference between God creating something and God making something? Apparently not ! !
Whatever it takes to maintain the evolution delusion. Agenda driven science is not science at all. Denial of ongoing and increasing information simply because it refutes mistaken hypothesis built upon former faulty or incomplete information, is corrupt human nature, not science in pursuit of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1S_CU3ecNU
Original Bio Materials
Denial of the obvious continues.
http://evidencepress.com/interview-with-brian-thomas/
: 4WD Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 09:08:02
No God did not create me, at least not my physical body. He didn't create Adam's physical body either. Adam's body was formed of the dust of the earth in whatever manner God chose to do that. God did create the system whereby living things are the result of procreation. If there is any creation involved in the human being, it is the spirit of man. And it is that which is in the image of God.
The distinction between what God creates [ex nihilo] and what God makes from some existing stuff is an important distinction.
I'm surprised to hear that you don't believe that God created you, for it is all over scriptures, that God created man. May I ask, how do you define a man? What is the make up of the man that God created?
: Michael2012 Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 12:26:56I'm surprised to hear that you don't believe that God created you, for it is all over scriptures, that God created man. May I ask, how do you define a man? What is the make up of the man that God created?
Do you not know and understand the difference between create and procreate? Apparently not.
Jesus told Nicodemus ,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". And it seems you haven't a clue about what that even means. But I am not surprised that you do not know what is meant when it says that God created man. The make up of the man that God created is his spirit. It is not in his flesh that man is in the image of God, but in his spirit.
The earth is young.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1utz47C3do
: Amo Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 12:15:10
Whatever it takes to maintain the evolution delusion. Agenda driven science is not science at all. Denial of ongoing and increasing information simply because it refutes mistaken hypothesis built upon former faulty or incomplete information, is corrupt human nature, not science in pursuit of truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1S_CU3ecNU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1S_CU3ecNU)
You say this as though you yourself have credible data and then you post this video from a non-scientist "Dr".
What I would really be interested in seeing is some research from a secularist scientist that has come to the conclusion that the earth and universe is 6000 years old, or are ALL non-christian scientists members of the conspiracy theory group;
the 14 billion year old universe.
During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:
"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?
COFFIN: Yes.
Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?
COFFIN: Correct.
Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?
COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)
There is absolutely no reason to read the creation story in Genesis as a metaphorical account of events.
I know you want to believe this. However, Christians have known for a very long time that it is not a literal history.
It is not written as a poem, and even the use of language and grammar do in no shape or form indicate anything else but a normal, historical description of events.
The only reason why one would insist that the creation story is metaphorical is to try and fit evolution into the story.
That's obviously false. Christians realized it was not a literal history over 1500 years before anyone knew about evolution.
Genesis 1 and 2 are in complete opposition to evolution.
As you have now seen, they are completely consistent with evolution.
Unfortunately there are people that seem to think our understanding of Genesis is defective and it needs to be fixed.
Your revision of Genesis is flawed. However, it doesn't affect your salvation, so it doesn't "need to be fixed."
YE creationism is assumed to be truth, and Gods Word must be altered to fit the assumption, but not every error puts your salvation at risk. Thank God for that.
Do you know how many times Genesis had to be altered in history
Early 1900s when Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.
It probably seem like cheating YE creationists, when evolutionary theory is repeatedly refined and made more accurate as we gain new information. But that's how science works. Many YE creationists have revised their revision of Genesis, to accommodate speciation, the existence of transitional forms, the genetic data, and so on. So it's not entirely one-sided.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 15:37:51
During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:
"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?
COFFIN: Yes.
Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?
COFFIN: Correct.
Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?
COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)
That about summarizes YE scientific research, thanks for that.
That about summarizes YE scientific research, thanks for that.
Not just Coffin. You might want to look up
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms, written by Kurt Wise. A very straightforward and knowledgeable discussion of the situation.
I don't agree with him, he's a YE creationist, but he does a pretty good job of describing transitional forms and how creationists might think of them.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 15:37:51
During the Arkansas trial, Harold Coffin, a Creation Research Society member from Loma Linda University, was asked about the Burgess Shale fossil site, which has been dated to the early Cambrian period:
"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?
COFFIN: Yes.
Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?
COFFIN: Correct.
Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?
COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)
The excerpt is leading and attempts to insinuate that YE Creationists reject the scientific data solely on the basis that the Bible states otherwise.
This is most certainly not true and this part of the cross examination has been completely taken out of context.
What this cross examination refers to is the basis of which Coffin has build his premise.
Now every scientific theory has a premise, and its perfectly valid to build a theory on that premise whether true or false.
Some people start with a premise on the basis of Theism, some people start with a premise on the basis of Atheism. Neither is unscientific.
Lets turn this around:
Q) The Bible seems to indicate that the universe is only 5000 years old, but you think it's 500 million years old, correct?
A) Yes
Q) You say that because of information from scientific data, don't you?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have scientific data, you could believe the age of the earth to be 5000 years, couldn't you?
A) Yes, without scientific data
See, this line of questioning doesn't confirm or prove anything substantial, all it does is confirm that people build notions on premises.
It shows that in the absence of data you could believe anything you want BECAUSE of the absence of data.
Example:
Q) You believe God exists, don't you?
A) Yes
Q) You believe God exists because the Bible states so, correct?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have a Bible, could you believe God does not exist?
A) Yes, if the Bible didn't exist
In no shape or form does this line of questioning establish anything besides that fact that the believer has a basis for his believe.
You may as well ask the exact same questions to a Muslim and change the word "Bible" with "Quran", and the line of questioning still wouldn't prove any irrational premise by the believer.
The most funny thing about posting the above excerpt however is that this exact same part of the Arkansas trial is used by evolutionists to wipe the floor with Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. Read for example "Deception by Design" by Lenny Flank.
He uses this argument that ANY attempt to take creationism as a premise is irrational and insufferably naive.
Reality is of course very different.
Coffin does not reject scientific data solely on the basis of the Bible. He disputes the scientific data on the basis of scientific data.
: 4WD Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 12:37:34
Michael said:
I'm surprised to hear that you don't believe that God created you, for it is all over scriptures, that God created man. May I ask, how do you define a man? What is the make up of the man that God created?
Do you not know and understand the difference between create and procreate? Apparently not.
Jesus told Nicodemus , "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". And it seems you haven't a clue about what that even means. But I am not surprised that you do not know what is meant when it says that God created man. The make up of the man that God created is his spirit. It is not in his flesh that man is in the image of God, but in his spirit.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh", it seems that you want me to understand that your mom gave birth to your flesh by procreation. Is that what you mean? Now, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", what would you want me to understand by that? Please explain as I don't want to go on guessing. Thanks.
4WD,
According to your understanding of the scriptures, what do you say God created ex nihilo?
You say that God did not create Adam's flesh. Then who did?
Would you say that God did not create the animals' flesh? If so, then what in the animal did God create?
: AVZ Fri Aug 11, 2017 - 21:42:57
The excerpt is leading and attempts to insinuate that YE Creationists reject the scientific data solely on the basis that the Bible states otherwise.
This is most certainly not true and this part of the cross examination has been completely taken out of context.
What this cross examination refers to is the basis of which Coffin has build his premise.
Now every scientific theory has a premise, and its perfectly valid to build a theory on that premise whether true or false.
Some people start with a premise on the basis of Theism, some people start with a premise on the basis of Atheism. Neither is unscientific.
Lets turn this around:
Q) The Bible seems to indicate that the universe is only 5000 years old, but you think it's 500 million years old, correct?
A) Yes
Q) You say that because of information from scientific data, don't you?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have scientific data, you could believe the age of the earth to be 5000 years, couldn't you?
A) Yes, without scientific data
See, this line of questioning doesn't confirm or prove anything substantial, all it does is confirm that people build notions on premises.
It shows that in the absence of data you could believe anything you want BECAUSE of the absence of data.
Example:
Q) You believe God exists, don't you?
A) Yes
Q) You believe God exists because the Bible states so, correct?
A) Correct
Q) If you did not have a Bible, could you believe God does not exist?
A) Yes, if the Bible didn't exist
In no shape or form does this line of questioning establish anything besides that fact that the believer has a basis for his believe.
You may as well ask the exact same questions to a Muslim and change the word "Bible" with "Quran", and the line of questioning still wouldn't prove any irrational premise by the believer.
The most funny thing about posting the above excerpt however is that this exact same part of the Arkansas trial is used by evolutionists to wipe the floor with Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. Read for example "Deception by Design" by Lenny Flank.
He uses this argument that ANY attempt to take creationism as a premise is irrational and insufferably naive.
Reality is of course very different.
Coffin does not reject scientific data solely on the basis of the Bible. He disputes the scientific data on the basis of scientific data.
As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.
: Michael2012 Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 00:29:244WD,
According to your understanding of the scriptures, what do you say God created ex nihilo?
If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that there are only three things that God created ex nihilo, all the rest it says He made. The first is "the heavens and earth". Some scholars consider that to be a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. You can look that up. basically it means the totality of everything, namely, all the "stuff" from which everything in the entire universe is made of. Second, is life. Biological evolutionists think that somehow life just came about. I don't believe that. The probability that all the right chemicals formed together into DNA and was somehow "zapped" with just the right energy and life began is essentially zero. So life was created by God. And third and the last creation in Genesis was the spirit of man given to Adam and Eve. Everything else came [was made]about according to the laws of nature that was created with the stuff of the first creation ex nihilo. How much of what was made came about by active engagement of God Himself I am not ready to stipulate. I know that on occasion He does intercede in the process through actions outside of the natural realm that he set in motion, but not really that often. That is what I think. I believe that is consistent with the two main forms of God's revelation. One is His general revelation as revealed by the universe as it is. God says that
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. " The other is His special revelation as revealed in His written word, the Bible.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 07:34:34
As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.
Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:12:32
Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.
No, perhaps my grammar didn't explain my query correctly, I am looking for an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:18:17
No, perhaps my grammar didn't explain my query correctly, I am looking for an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.
Yet another gem. You want me to show you scientific research by an Atheist that proves Genesis is true?
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:12:32Well that is an odd question. I you sure you did think this through?
Young Earth Creationists by definition are people who believe the literal account of Genesis. There is no such thing as a non-biblical young earth creationist.
You want me to show you scientific research by someone who is a creationist and believes that the earth is 6000 years old...but who rejects the Bible?
Odd.
Not an odd question at all. Obviously you didn't even read, let alone understand, the question. YECs are not the only "creationists".
I am a creationist. But I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist who believes the universe is about 13+ billion years old and the earth is about 4+ billion years old. And I do so in complete acceptance of the Bible. I simply reject the YEC
interpretation of the Bible as it relates to creation.
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:23:49
Yet another gem. You want me to show you scientific research by an Atheist that proves Genesis is true?
I said nothing of Genesis, please show me scientific data that supports a 6000 year old earth, if it is true then at least some scientists without a biblical agenda would have revealed it.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:25:14
Not an odd question at all. Obviously you didn't even read, let alone understand, the question. YECs are not the only "creationists".
I am a creationist. But I am not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist who believes the universe is about 13+ billion years old and the earth is about 4+ billion years old. And I do so in complete acceptance of the Bible. I simply reject the YEC interpretation of the Bible as it relates to creation.
He was asking for a
non-biblical creationist. How many creationists do you know that are atheist?
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:27:51
I said nothing of Genesis, please show me scientific data that supports a 6000 year old earth, if it is true then at least some scientists without a biblical agenda would have revealed it.
You are on a roll, aren't you?
There are two options: Either unguided evolution is true, or guided creation is true.
By definition evolution takes millions of years.
So how many Atheists do you think there are who believe guided creation is true?
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:28:19
He was asking for a non-biblical creationist. How many creationists do you know that are atheist?
He didn't ask for a
non-biblical creationist. He asked for
an atheist scientist to support the 6000 year old earth theory. Not a biblical or creationist researcher.
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:32:03
You are on a roll, aren't you?
There are two options: Either unguided evolution is true, or guided creation is true.
By definition evolution takes millions of years.
So how many Atheists do you think there are who believe guided creation is true?
Stop dancing around the question, if the earth is 6000 years old, at least one scientist that has never read the bible should be able to confirm your belief.
And it has ZERO to do with what scientists believe, I'm asking for research and data.
Alan,
You nailed it, it does not matter about a scientist's belief structure. Of course that applies in both directions. A Christian Scientist's opinion is every bit as valid as the
atheist, I used to be.
And Barbarian,
I am sick of you lying and telling people hat it is not a salvic issue because it is. in Mat, 18:3 jjesus said:
"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.
: th1b.taylor Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 09:28:02"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.
And what, precisely, does it mean to become like little children. What is it about little children that would make them capable of entering the kingdom of heaven?
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 08:40:30
Stop dancing around the question, if the earth is 6000 years old, at least one scientist that has never read the bible should be able to confirm your belief.
And it has ZERO to do with what scientists believe, I'm asking for research and data.
I am not dancing around the question. Your question is irrational, because any scientist who discovers that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist.
Evolution CANNOT account for a young earth there simply would not be enough time. So any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, CANNOT be an evolutionist.
So then if a young earth can only be explained by creation...then the scientist must also admit there is a creator.
And where do we find that creator...in the Bible!
You want me to show you scientific data from a scientist who discovered that the earth must be created...but yet rejects that there is a creator!
That is an irrational request on your part.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 07:34:34
As I stated above, if you could point to one single piece of scientific research from a non-biblical-creationist that supports a 6000 year old earth, I would look at the data objectively.
The problem of course, is that anyone who once believed the world is countless millions of years old, then changed there convictions to it being only thousands of years old, would likely become a creationist. This of course has happened. There would be no good or logical reason to deny the bibles creation account, if one became convinced the world was actually as young as scripture declares. Nor of course would they any longer be accepted by old earth evolutionists as anything but a young earth creationist. The following sites contain testimonies of scientists converted from evolution to creation, the natural result of those scientists who actually did do as you suggest none have.
https://www.icr.org/article/95/
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/from_evolution_to_creation_lumsden.html
http://www.learnthebible.org/world-famous-atheist-converted-by-the-scientific-evidence-for-god.html
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php
http://www.dawntoduskpublications.com/html/Confession.htm
https://standingforgod.com/2010/10/17/truth-of-the-creation-testimony/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owDOD7WZvEw
This pretty much goes both ways. Those converted to old earth evolution, are of course no longer considered young earth creationists. Your request has nothing to do with seeking truth in the matter, but simply a setup toward a manipulated outcome. One that supports your own views. In reality though, it does no such thing.
AVZ. Amo,
All creationists are not young earth creationists. In fact I think it is safe to say that most creationists are not young earth creationists. Few creationists hold to the 6000 year old earth [and universe].
Ha ha ha ha. This discussion is funny. No scientist has a definite age for the earth. Not a single one.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 10:51:44
AVZ. Amo,
All creationists are not young earth creationists. In fact I think it is safe to say that most creationists are not young earth creationists. Few creationists hold to the 6000 year old earth [and universe].
And the point is?
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 09:58:43
I am not dancing around the question. Your question is irrational, because any scientist who discovers that the earth is 6000 years old is a creationist.
Evolution CANNOT account for a young earth there simply would not be enough time. So any scientist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, CANNOT be an evolutionist.
So then if a young earth can only be explained by creation...then the scientist must also admit there is a creator.
And where do we find that creator...in the Bible!
You want me to show you scientific data from a scientist who discovered that the earth must be created...but yet rejects that there is a creator!
That is an irrational request on your part.
Nope, that doesn't equate. If the earth is in fact merely 6000 years old then those facts should be confirmed by at least some percentage of scientists without needing to insert the faith that God created it in a specific timeline. God aside, those facts should be popping up all over the place in the scientific community but you would prefer to pit scientific data against God, when as 4WD continualy states, it isn't so, science continues to reveal the facts of creation that God did in His timeline and it isn't in 6000 years.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 07:53:18
If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that there are only three things that God created ex nihilo, all the rest it says He made. The first is "the heavens and earth". ....... Second, is life. ........ And third and the last creation in Genesis was the spirit of man given to Adam and Eve. Everything else came [was made]about according to the laws of nature that was created with the stuff of the first creation ex nihilo.
How did you come to know that these 3 were created out of nothing? Is it said in Genesis? If so, can you cite the Genesis scripture?
On life: Is life created or is it given coming from a source?
On the spirit of man: Is it created or is formed or is given?
In your answers please cite reference scriptures.
: Texas Conservative Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 11:07:11
Ha ha ha ha. This discussion is funny. No scientist has a definite age for the earth. Not a single one.
Perhaps not definite, but not a single one says that the earth is only 6000 years old, the only ones that do need to fill in the blanks with faith rather than facts.
: Michael2012 Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 12:13:07
How did you come to know that these 3 were created out of nothing? Is it said in Genesis? If so, can you cite the Genesis scripture?
On life: Is life created or is it given coming from a source?
On the spirit of man: Is it created or is formed or is given?
In your answers please cite reference scriptures.
Sorry, but your questions don't make any sense. What could God have made the heavens and the earth out of? Out of what could God have made life? And out of what could God have made the spirit of man?
From Vine's OT dictionary:
Createbara' (H1254), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen_1:1; cf. Gen_2:3; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.
Bara' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" (Isa_41:20; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7, Isa_45:12; Amo_4:13), yatsar, "to form" (Isa_43:1, Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7; Amo_4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa_45:18 : "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [`asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.
Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5; Isa_45:18; Isa_65:17); man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:12); Israel (Isa_43:1; Mal_2:10); a new thing (Jer_31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa_4:5); north and south (Psa_89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa_45:8); speech (Isa_57:19); darkness (Isa_45:7); wind (Amo_4:13); and a new heart (Psa_51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.
Especially striking is the use of bara' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [`asah] the earth, and created [bara'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa_45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa_44:12-20; Isa_46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (Isa_43:16-21; Isa_65:17-25).
Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara' is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory.
qanah (H7069), "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen_14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen_14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deu_32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Psa_78:54; Psa_139:13; and Pro_8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.
The cognate languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic meaning of "to get, acquire." Ugaritic, however, attests the meaning "create." In fact, qny is the primary Ugaritic term to express creation. The close relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the contextual meaning of qanah as "create" in the Old Testament passages cited above argue for the use of qanah as a synonym for "create" along with bara', `asah, and yatsar.
`asah (H6213), "to create, do, make." This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for "create" only about 60 times. There is nothing in- herent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when `asah is parallel to bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation.
Unfortunately, the word is not attested in cognate languages contemporary with the Old Testament, and its etymology is unclear. Because `asah describes the most common of human (and divine) activities, it is ill-suited to communicate theological meaning—except where it is used with bara' or other terms whose technical meanings are clearly established.
The most instructive occurrences of `asah are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen_1:1 uses the verb bara' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen_1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: "And God made [`asah] the firmament...." Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only `asah. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bara'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: Gen_1:16 (the lights of heaven); Gen_1:25, Gen_3:1 (the animals); Gen_1:31; Gen_2:2 (all his work); and Gen_6:6 (man). In Gen_1:26-27, however, `asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness....So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, Gen_2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, Gen_5:1 equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in Gen_2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."
It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 12:14:11
Perhaps not definite, but not a single one says that the earth is only 6000 years old, the only ones that do need to fill in the blanks with faith rather than facts.
There are no facts saying how old the earth is. Those who discount creation see countless millions of years according to their own understanding. Those who allow for creation see much evidence to support the same. Neither can prove the age of the earth, beyond any question. Those who reject creation would necessarily arrive at wrong conclusions concerning materials created at or in a certain state, not believing such but attributing that state to long ages of time and process apart from creation. Those who believe in creation cannot prove anything along these lines either, not knowing themselves the original composition of anything when created. The real issue is what evidence supports, creation or evolution, not exact understanding of times involved. Though there is a correlation between both views and time in relation to either or.
: Amo Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 13:24:07There are no facts saying how old the earth is.
I am not certain what you mean by that. There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 13:46:54
I am not certain what you mean by that. There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years.
Radiometric dating is a mathematical model that can never be proven.
We can prove some dates via C14, but that's it.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 13:46:54
I am not certain what you mean by that. There is radiometric age-dating available to determine the age of the earth within a few million years.
The age of the earth is not in question here. Genesis does not mention a creation day for the earth.
This discussion is about evolution, unless you wish to argue that the earth evolved.
Although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age.
For example: we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.
And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
And Barbarian,
I am sick of you lying and telling people hat it is not a salvic issue because it is.
No, that's wrong. Unless you make an idol of creationism, it doesn't matter a bit. If you don't want to accept evolution, you are no less Christian than the rest of us.
in Mat, 18:3 jjesus said:
Nothing whatever about evolution. Here's what He said:
"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So you don't need all your new doctrines and extra stuff. Just listen to Him and accept what He tells you and stop trying to rationalize it. Here's how you know how He'll chose those who go with Him and who will go with Satan and his angels:
Matthew 25:31-46
Do that, and you're with Him. Don't do it, and He will send you away.
Just that simple. Notice evolution has nothing to do with it.
Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 14:52:05
No, that's wrong. Unless you make an idol of creationism, it doesn't matter a bit. If you don't want to accept evolution, you are no less Christian than the rest of us.
Nothing whatever about evolution. Here's what He said:
"Truly I tell you," He said, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So you don't need all your new doctrines and extra stuff. Just listen to Him and accept what He tells you and stop trying to rationalize it. Here's how you know how He'll chose those who go with Him and who will go with Satan and his angels:
Matthew 25:31-46
Do that, and you're with Him. Don't do it, and He will send you away.
Just that simple. Notice evolution has nothing to do with it.
Belief structure is critical for admission in Heaven after the physical death.
False prophets will not be in heaven. If evolution is a false testimony, those who have propagated it will not be there either.
Radiometric dating is a mathematical model that can never be proven.
We can prove some dates via C14, but that's it.
Actually, argon/argon testing correctly dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii.
It very well tested and we know the actual rates of decay to very close percentages. And there are some that can vary, which is why they aren't uses as much.
If you'd like the details, we can talk about it.
False prophets will not be in heaven. If evolution is a false testimony, those who have propagated it will not be there either.
Evolution is not a prophesy or a testimony. It's just a natural phenomenon. And even if you don't accept it, God won't care. That's not how He decides where you will spend eternity.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 15:35:41
Evolution is not a prophesy or a testimony. It's just a natural phenomenon. And even if you don't accept it, God won't care. That's not how He decides where you will spend eternity.
Your and I and all will be judged by the word of God. Those found to have been warring against it, will not be in heaven.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.Many will think they are going to be in heaven, but will not be their. None of us thinks we are the ones the above is referring to. Many of us will apparently be wrong.
: Michael2012 Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 00:10:49 Now, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", what would you want me to understand by that? Please explain as I don't want to go on guessing. Thanks.
Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Zec 12:1 A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person......
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 11:30:18And the point is?
All creationists are not young earth creationists. In fact I think it is safe to say that most creationists are not young earth creationists. Few creationists hold to the 6000 year old earth [and universe].
: Texas Conservative Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 14:01:16
Radiometric dating is a mathematical model that can never be proven.
We can prove some dates via C14, but that's it.
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf
Read and learn.
Your and I and all will be judged by the word of God. Those found to have been warring against it, will not be in heaven.
Since the word of God takes no position on evolution, that's not a concern in this case.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Many will think they are going to be in heaven, but will not be their. None of us thinks we are the ones the above is referring to. Many of us will apparently be wrong.
Matthew 25:31-40 explicitly tells you how He will choose those who spend eternity with him. Whether or not you approve or disapprove of evolution is not one of those things.
Let God be God, and accept it His way.
Since the word of God takes no position on evolution, that's not a concern in this case.
A truly and willfully ignorant statement. There is not one hint of evolutionary theory anywhere in scripture save in your deceived mind. You cannot produce one single conclusive statement suggesting evolution from scripture without twisting the meaning to your own understanding. You also ignore every conclusive statement from scripture simply stating the creation or pollute it with your own unscriptural understanding. Only in such a state of self imposed ignorance regarding the word of God, can you and have you made the above statement.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 18:10:19
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf
Read and learn.
Already knew about it boyo.
My points still stand.
: AVZ Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 14:07:42
The age of the earth is not in question here. Genesis does not mention a creation day for the earth.
This discussion is about evolution, unless you wish to argue that the earth evolved.
Although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age.
For example: we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.
And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
It's as simple as that is it? I'm glad you know more than 1000's of scientists that have dedicated their lives to the field, perhaps you should inform them they've wasted their time and efforts.
: Texas Conservative Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 14:01:16
Radiometric dating is a mathematical model that can never be proven.
We can prove some dates via C14, but that's it.
That's a valid point but the scientific community for some time now has opted to apply alternative methods or continued field exploration to verify their data before assigning dates to geological finds.
Amo, you're taking this discussion too far when you begin to question another person's salvation over disagreements.
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 13:10:15
Michael said:
How did you come to know that these 3 were created out of nothing? Is it said in Genesis? If so, can you cite the Genesis scripture?
On life: Is life created or is it given coming from a source?
On the spirit of man: Is it created or is formed or is given?
In your answers please cite reference scriptures.
Sorry, but your questions don't make any sense. What could God have made the heavens and the earth out of? Out of what could God have made life? And out of what could God have made the spirit of man?
From Vine's OT dictionary:
Create
bara' (H1254), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen_1:1; cf. Gen_2:3; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.
Bara' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" (Isa_41:20; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7, Isa_45:12; Amo_4:13), yatsar, "to form" (Isa_43:1, Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7; Amo_4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa_45:18 : "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [`asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.
Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5; Isa_45:18; Isa_65:17); man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:12); Israel (Isa_43:1; Mal_2:10); a new thing (Jer_31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa_4:5); north and south (Psa_89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa_45:8); speech (Isa_57:19); darkness (Isa_45:7); wind (Amo_4:13); and a new heart (Psa_51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.
Especially striking is the use of bara' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [`asah] the earth, and created [bara'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa_45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa_44:12-20; Isa_46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (Isa_43:16-21; Isa_65:17-25).
Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara' is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory.
qanah (H7069), "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen_14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen_14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deu_32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Psa_78:54; Psa_139:13; and Pro_8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.
The cognate languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic meaning of "to get, acquire." Ugaritic, however, attests the meaning "create." In fact, qny is the primary Ugaritic term to express creation. The close relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the contextual meaning of qanah as "create" in the Old Testament passages cited above argue for the use of qanah as a synonym for "create" along with bara', `asah, and yatsar.
`asah (H6213), "to create, do, make." This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for "create" only about 60 times. There is nothing in- herent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when `asah is parallel to bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation.
Unfortunately, the word is not attested in cognate languages contemporary with the Old Testament, and its etymology is unclear. Because `asah describes the most common of human (and divine) activities, it is ill-suited to communicate theological meaning—except where it is used with bara' or other terms whose technical meanings are clearly established.
The most instructive occurrences of `asah are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen_1:1 uses the verb bara' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen_1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: "And God made [`asah] the firmament...." Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only `asah. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bara'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: Gen_1:16 (the lights of heaven); Gen_1:25, Gen_3:1 (the animals); Gen_1:31; Gen_2:2 (all his work); and Gen_6:6 (man). In Gen_1:26-27, however, `asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness....So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, Gen_2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, Gen_5:1 equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in Gen_2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."
It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.
4WD said:
What could God have made the heavens and the earth out of?
Scripture does not say, as far as my reading of scriptures. But my mind tells me that, it is from out of nothing, as by reason, everything else do not exist until God created them, since scriptures says that all things were God's creation. And this goes well with Vine's discussion of the word bara'.
I noticed that from what you've posted out of Vine's, is that, man is a created being ex nihilo (See highlighted portion in green in Vine's quote above).
Anyway, I'd like to point out that, in fact everything was created by God, whether from out of nothing or from out of what was created from out of nothing. All that, and so all then, is the creation of God.
Col.1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
So, why say, you are not created by God?
4WD said:
Out of what could God have made life?
In so far as life is concerned, my understanding on this is that life is not created but is given by God. In God is life and the Source of life. And this life is eternal and unlimited and is in God, for He is the living and immortal God from eternity to eternity. So, life is not created, more so, created ex nihilo by God, but is given.
4WD said:
And out of what could God have made the spirit of man?
Scripture does not say, as far as my reading of scriptures. And whether it is created from out of nothing, so I can't say. Besides, concerning man, the spirit which is in him, in my present view, is not something that is part of what makes up man. It is in the same sense that the life which is in the man is not part of what makes up man. In another similar sense, the spirit which is in the animals is something that is not part of what makes up the animal.
: Michael2012 Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 03:36:04Anyway, I'd like to point out that, in fact everything was created by God, whether from out of nothing or from out of what was created from out of nothing. All that, and so all then, is the creation of God.
So then when, say, a baby such as Charlie Gard is born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome you believe that is God's creation. Interesting. Hideous but interesting.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 21:45:21
It's as simple as that is it? I'm glad you know more than 1000's of scientists that have dedicated their lives to the field, perhaps you should inform them they've wasted their time and efforts.
It is a simple choice. Either God's word is correct, and the world is the way it is due to His creative power, or fallen humanity stuck in the extremely limited view of the box of that creation are correct. You put your faith in fallen humanities observations within their box, others put their faith in the testimony of God's word who is Himself not restricted from any knowledge in any way shape or form. I say again, those inside the box who do not know the original state of the materials this world consists of, or the state of this world itself at its beginning, cannot determine its age or the age of the materials of which it consists.
All attempts to do so, depend upon them creating their own version of how things were and are. This is faulty from the outset. It is exactly as the bible has said, those who say all things remain the same since the creation, are ignorant of crucial facts pertaining to the knowledge those very people seek to establish. They are lost souls, having more faith in their own understanding than the word of God. The end thereof is death.
Prov 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
: Amo Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 07:39:56
It is a simple choice. Either God's word is correct, and the world is the way it is due to His creative power, or fallen humanity stuck in the extremely limited view of the box of that creation are correct. You put your faith in fallen humanities observations within their box, others put their faith in the testimony of God's word who is Himself not restricted from any knowledge in any way shape or form. I say again, those inside the box who do not know the original state of the materials this world consists of, or the state of this world itself at its beginning, cannot determine its age or the age of the materials of which it consists.
All attempts to do so, depend upon them creating their own version of how things were and are. This is faulty from the outset. It is exactly as the bible has said, those who say all things remain the same since the creation, are ignorant of crucial facts pertaining to the knowledge those very people seek to establish. They are lost souls, having more faith in their own understanding than the word of God. The end thereof is death.
Prov 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Amo,
The minute that you provide an interpretation of what the word of God means, then you have put your faith in your own understanding. And if the end thereof is death, then you have just signed your own death warrant. Perhaps you should be more careful about who you are consigning to death.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 21:54:21
Amo, you're taking this discussion too far when you begin to question another person's salvation over disagreements.
Salvation or not, is all about agreement with God's word or not. Perhaps you should read the bible again and take note of how many times those who would not listen to God's word died for doing so, and are said to have lost salvation. According to your understanding, anyone can make the bible out to say anything, and then still be saved because no one will lose salvation over just a disagreement. BALONEY!
Those who choose to disagree with and argue against the plain testimony of God's word, will not have eternal life. God Himself will judge all according to that word, and determine who accepted His rightful authority and will be saved, and who rejected that same authority and will not. This is basic and goes back to the very beginning. God said don't eat from a certain tree or you will die, Satan said you can it from the tree it doesn't matter. It was just a disagreement. Our parents ate from the tree and we have been dying ever since. Get a grip man. Those who will not believe and submit to the authority of God's word here and now, will not enter heaven. This is basic.
Choosing not to believe the truth is the prerequisite of all sin. Therefore, choosing to believe a lie, is choosing sin over the righteousness of God. All who do so are deceived and will not enter heaven. To the contrary, god Himself will select their final and fatal delusion.
2 These 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.God's word is truth. Those who deny it are and will be deceived unto damnation.
: Amo Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 08:00:17Salvation or not, is all about agreement with God's word or not.
No, it not about agreement with God's word; it is all about agreement with what you, Amo, think God's word means. That may or may not have much to do with what God means.
: Alan Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 12:14:11
Perhaps not definite, but not a single one says that the earth is only 6000 years old, the only ones that do need to fill in the blanks with faith rather than facts.
Everyone needs to fill in the blanks with faith. Faith in an interpretation of God's Word or in science. How many people understand all the science and can do all the mathematics involved without a computer program? If not, you are putting your faith into science.
: Texas Conservative Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 08:14:09Everyone needs to fill in the blanks with faith. Faith in an interpretation of God's Word or in science. How many people understand all the science and can do all the mathematics involved without a computer program? If not, you are putting your faith into science.
Faith in an interpretation of God's Word is does not preclude faith in science. Nor does faith in science preclude a faith in an interpretation of God's word. They are not mutually exclusive as some here try to make it.
: Amo Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 08:00:17
God's word is truth. Those who deny it are and will be deceived unto damnation.
Yes, but simply put, the way you read it isn't the way I read it, no damnation here and no denying the word of God.
: 4WD Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 08:45:07
Faith in an interpretation of God's Word is does not preclude faith in science. Nor does faith in science preclude a faith in an interpretation of God's word. They are not mutually exclusive as some here try to make it.
Perhaps true, but the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made.
There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact.
Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial.
And those who think evolutionists do not have an agenda to promote their theory, even if the data argues to the contrary, are seriously deluded.
The worst thing however are Christians who do not dispute such data and go to great lengths to corrupt interpretation of scripture so that it fits the claims made by evolutionists.
: Amo Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 08:00:17
Salvation or not, is all about agreement with God's word or not... According to your understanding, anyone can make the bible out to say anything, and then still be saved because no one will lose salvation over just a disagreement. BALONEY!
Those who choose to disagree with and argue against the plain testimony of God's word, will not have eternal life...
God's word is truth. Those who deny it are and will be deceived unto damnation.
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
(1 John 5:1 KJV)
A reasonable interpretation:
Everyone who believe that Jesus is "The Christ" is a child of God: And everyone who loves God also loves all of God's children.
Because this is the word of God, because it is the inspired Word of God, I believe we ought to be very careful not to condemn any of God's children.
I believe we should take a moment to consider what is being said here. Some of you might believe that the second part of this verse is suggesting that everyone who loves God also loves God's Son Jesus. While they would not be incorrect, because Jesus is indeed God's Son; many people miss the fact that this verse is not only referring to Jesus our Lord and Savior, but to all of God's children. It is not that if we love God, the one who begets, that we also love Jesus, often said to be "the only begotten Son of God"; but if we love God, the one who begets, we will also love all of God's children. Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God. If we say we love God but do not love
all of God's begotten children, we are liars, and the love of God is not in us. I believe that the confusion is rooted in interpretations. In John 3:16 of The King James version of the Bible, as well as many other versions of the Bible, interpreters have interpreted God's word, that was written in Greek to say,"For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
It is interesting to note that the King James version of Hebrews uses the same terminology when referring to Abraham's son Issac when Abraham was commanded to offer up his son Issac as a sacrifice unto the Lord. The King James version states in Hebrews 11, verse 17 that "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up
his only begotten son"
We all know that Abraham did not have a one and only begotten son at the time Abraham set Issac upon the alter as a sacrifice unto God. Indeed, Abraham had another son. His name was Ishmael. And Ishmael was indeed a begotten son of Abraham.
Jesus is indeed a Son of God. He
always was a Son of God. And that is what makes His Sonship unique.
Therefore, I would not be so quick to condemn any of God's children to hell. That is, I would not be so quick to condemn any person to hell that believes that Jesus is the Christ. Let not the translations of men condemn you as well.
"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death."
(1 John 5:15)
Indeed, if you see a brother sin a sin that is not unto death, do not condemn him, but pray for him instead. The condemnation of God's children has no place among God's children.
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:07:25
Perhaps true, but the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made.
But that's the point, science is not in opposition to God's word, therefore the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:07:25
There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact.
I don't know of a single person on this board who makes that claim.
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:07:25Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial.
Science is nothing more than the study of the natural universe which is God's creation; how could science attack theology? If you mean there are scientists who attack theology, then yes I would agree. But I could probably give you a couple of theologians who to attack theology more so than any scientists.
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:07:25
Perhaps true, but the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made.
There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact.
Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial.
And those who think evolutionists do not have an agenda to promote their theory, even if the data argues to the contrary, are seriously deluded.
The worst thing however are Christians who do not dispute such data and go to great lengths to corrupt interpretation of scripture so that it fits the claims made by evolutionists.
I personally cannot insist that mankind has evolved from some kind of creature that was not mankind. Although I have seen many claims of science to that affect, and also claims that vast amounts of evidence exists to that affect. I haven't seen it. Or if I have seen it, I have not been convinced by it. That is not to say that evolution of species is not occurring. It very well may be occurring. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that it is true.
I agree with you, in that " the moment science is in opposition with Gods' Word, a choice must be made."
I agree with you that "There are people on this board who make the claim that man evolved from apes, and insist that this is a scientific fact." And the truth is, some of them are Christians. Yes, some of them are God's children, whether or not evolution is true.
I agree with you in part that, "Those who claim that theology is not under attack by science are in self-denial." However, science is knowledge, it is not something capable of attacking anyone, or anything. But people who use science with a purpose to attack theology do exist. And it is therefore true that anyone who claims that no one is using science to attack theology is indeed in self-denial. It is happening all around us.
Therefore, what you say here must also be true in part, that "...those who think evolutionists do not have an agenda to promote their theory, even if the data argues to the contrary, are seriously deluded."
I say in part because I do not believe that all evolutionists have such an agenda, to attack theology. Some do, of course. Some Christians are evolutionists. And true Christians do not have an agenda to destroy theology. Rather they may simply have a thirst for knowledge and truth, however misguided, if misguided at all.
As I have said, I do not believe in evolution. I see it as a reasonable theory and tool of creation. It may not be true at all. I don't know. If you have any evidence that evolution is not true, I'd love to see it. If you have verses of scripture which forbid the possibility of evolution as being truth, I'd love to see that as well. As a Christian, I am not at odds with science. I am however skeptical of science. That is, I am skeptical of all knowledge. Convince me, and I will believe.
Your final comment is more difficult to answer. You say, "The worst thing however are Christians who do not dispute such data and go to great lengths to corrupt interpretation of scripture so that it fits the claims made by evolutionists."
I cannot dispute scientific data that I do not understand. And I cannot dispute reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures either. To dogmatically accept one interpretation of scripture when another is equally viable is just as unreasonable as to accept scientific claims on the grounds that they were conceived in the name of science, therefore it must be true mentality.
: 4WD Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 07:04:30
Michael said:
Anyway, I'd like to point out that, in fact everything was created by God, whether from out of nothing or from out of what was created from out of nothing. All that, and so all then, is the creation of God.
So then when, say, a baby such as Charlie Gard is born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome you believe that is God's creation. Interesting. Hideous but interesting.
Why would the baby not be a creation of God? Just because he is born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, he is no longer is God's creation? Hell is a creation of God. Judas was created by God. All those who died in the Flood in Noah's time, including those with perhaps mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, blind, deaf, lame, retarded, were created by God.
Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
John 1: 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.
: Sonofason Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:11:38
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
(1 John 5:1 KJV)
A reasonable interpretation:
Everyone who believe that Jesus is "The Christ" is a child of God: And everyone who loves God also loves all of God's children.
Because this is the word of God, because it is the inspired Word of God, I believe we ought to be very careful not to condemn any of God's children.
I believe we should take a moment to consider what is being said here. Some of you might believe that the second part of this verse is suggesting that everyone who loves God also loves God's Son Jesus. While they would not be incorrect, because Jesus is indeed God's Son; many people miss the fact that this verse is not only referring to Jesus our Lord and Savior, but to all of God's children. It is not that if we love God, the one who begets, that we also love Jesus, often said to be "the only begotten Son of God"; but if we love God, the one who begets, we will also love all of God's children. Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God. If we say we love God but do not love all of God's begotten children, we are liars, and the love of God is not in us. I believe that the confusion is rooted in interpretations. In John 3:16 of The King James version of the Bible, as well as many other versions of the Bible, interpreters have interpreted God's word, that was written in Greek to say,"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
It is interesting to note that the King James version of Hebrews uses the same terminology when referring to Abraham's son Issac when Abraham was commanded to offer up his son Issac as a sacrifice unto the Lord. The King James version states in Hebrews 11, verse 17 that "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son"
We all know that Abraham did not have a one and only begotten son at the time Abraham set Issac upon the alter as a sacrifice unto God. Indeed, Abraham had another son. His name was Ishmael. And Ishmael was indeed a begotten son of Abraham.
Jesus is indeed a Son of God. He always was a Son of God. And that is what makes His Sonship unique.
Therefore, I would not be so quick to condemn any of God's children to hell. That is, I would not be so quick to condemn any person to hell that believes that Jesus is the Christ. Let not the translations of men condemn you as well.
"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death."
(1 John 5:15)
Indeed, if you see a brother sin a sin that is not unto death, do not condemn him, but pray for him instead. The condemnation of God's children has no place among God's children.
Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God.Are they all begotten children or adopted?
: 4WD Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 18:01:05
Michael said:
Now, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", what would you want me to understand by that? Please explain as I don't want to go on guessing. Thanks.
Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Zec 12:1 A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person......
Sorry, but I still am not clarified on what it is you wanted me to understand by "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit".
With the verses you cited, here's what I gather of the spirit:
1. The spirit is given by God.
2. The spirit is formed by God.
Nothing with regards that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So please explain and elaborate.
: Michael2012 Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 15:06:10
Indeed, I said, "Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God."
Are they all begotten children or adopted?
Lets have a look at verse 1 in context with verse 2 and see what God is talking about here.
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(1 John 5:1-2)
Okay now. Verse one says that if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are children of God. When we accept this fact, we must also acknowledge that Jesus is also begotten of the father and is indeed a son of God. Yet Jesus was with the Father prior to Creation. He is also the Christ which makes him unique from all other sons and daughters of God, and we call him "The Son of God" which sets him apart from all other sons and daughters of God. By what power is Christ the Son of God? Is it not by the Power of God's Holy Spirit. Was not the physical manifestation of Jesus, the man, conceived and manifested by the Holy Spirit? How indeed, and by what power is a simple man adopted and received into the body of Christ, and into the family of God? Is it not by that same spirit, God's Holy Spirit?
The second part of verse 1 says that everyone that loves God loves his children. Verse 2 says that we can know that we love these children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. Do you see we have come full circle. Everyone who loves God loves his children. If we love God, we keep his commandments. If we keep his commandments, we know we love God's children.
Now take your eyes to verse 18:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."
a reasonable translation:
We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin. Rather, everyone who is born of God keeps himself from sin, and that wicked one cannot touch him.
I am not suggesting that the interpretation I have given is right. I am not demanding that yours is wrong. I have put forth what I believe is a reasonable interpretation that ought to cause everyone to stop and think. Are you really so confident in your interpretation despite the risk condemning God's children?
Furthermore, the Scriptures, according to the King James Version of the Bible tells us that Issac was the only begotten son of Abraham. How do you resolve this absolute contradiction?
I resolve it by understanding that "only begotten" may not have been the intended meaning of the Greek word that was originally written. In fact, I would suggest that the true sense of the word used means unique, uniquely begotten, or even beloved.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 15:34:03
Actually, argon/argon testing correctly dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii.
It very well tested and we know the actual rates of decay to very close percentages. And there are some that can vary, which is why they aren't uses as much.
If you'd like the details, we can talk about it.
Patently false! We have the knowledge that, if the earth is millions or billions of years old that the atmosphere changed as well as the other conditions surrounding a piece of material, that changes the rate of decay and we cannot e certain of how much did it begin decaying from and under what conditions?
Indeed, it is quite possible that the rate of decay of all radiometric isotopes changes over time. I wonder what the impact of a universal decrease in density is on these rates of decay. Indeed, I wonder what it's affect is on the diameter of our planet as well?
: th1b.taylor Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 17:25:48
Patently false! We have the knowledge that, if the earth is millions or billions of years old that the atmosphere changed as well as the other conditions surrounding a piece of material, that changes the rate of decay and we cannot e certain of how much did it begin decaying from and under what conditions?
No, scientists are quite certain of the data from dating methods used, you nor anyone else do not have grounds to argue that research.
: Alan Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 17:39:57
No, scientists are quite certain of the data from dating methods used, you nor anyone else do not have grounds to argue that research.
Scientists, for instance, cannot possibly be certain that C14 was in the atmosphere at a steady rate for the past 50k years. They make educated decisions to adhere to their methodology.
In science, skepticism and repeated verification are paramount, unless one wants to blindly have faith.
Yes, we can question, and should.
Scientists, for instance, cannot possibly be certain that C14 was in the atmosphere at a steady rate for the past 50k years. They make educated decisions to adhere to their methodology.
There's two things wrong with that statement:
1. Carbon-14 is not used by paleontologists, because the best methods can only get date out to 50,000 years or so.
2. The actual C14 content of the atmosphere can be determined for the past by looking at lake varves, which are annual layers found in certain ancient lakes.
In science, skepticism and repeated verification are paramount, unless one wants to blindly have faith.
If that weren't true, scientists would still think the Earth was a few thousand years old.
Yes, we can question, and should.
That's how we learned to calibrate the C14 method.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, argon/argon testing correctly dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii.
It very well tested and we know the actual rates of decay to very close percentages. And there are some that can vary, which is why they aren't uses as much.
If you'd like the details, we can talk about it.
Patently false!
It's a demonstrated fact:
Nailing Pompeii
Roman historian Pliny the Younger noted that Mount Vesuvius blew its top and destroyed Pompeii in the early afternoon of August 24, 1,918 years ago. Now, a team of scientists, tempted by the certainty of
that record, has confirmed the eruption to within 7 years. The team developed and used an improved radioactive argon-argon dating technique, which they say can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as recent as 1,000 years old.
"We nailed the date to 5% on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to 1% or less," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of California at Berkeley and director of the private Berkeley Geochro-nology Center. "Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon [an earlier method] and argon-argon dating."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/EO078i036p00382-02/pdf
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 20:46:38
There's two things wrong with that statement:
1. Carbon-14 is not used by paleontologists, because the best methods can only get date out to 50,000 years or so.
2. The actual C14 content of the atmosphere can be determined for the past by looking at lake varves, which are annual layers found in certain ancient lakes.
If that weren't true, scientists would still think the Earth was a few thousand years old.
That's how we learned to calibrate the C14 method.
You said there are two things wrong with my statement but did not say anything I don't already know, and hardly refutes what I said.
I am not against science, i make my living from science. I am against blind faith in science.
: Alan Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 17:39:57
No, scientists are quite certain of the data from dating methods used, you nor anyone else do not have grounds to argue that research.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists agree that somewhere in the past something happened that required the physical constants not to be constant.
In fact even today there are notions that we hold to be constant, that are not so constant under specific conditions.
Reality is that physical constants today are assumed to have been constant in the past, yet today's theory of this universe coming into existence does and must allow for these constants to have been inconstant else this universe could not have come into existence.
Present observations of these constants are not indicative for the past. They are assumed to have been constant, but nobody can tell if they indeed have always been and for how long they have been. If this universe is 13 billion years old, then 99.9999996% of it falls outside our ability of observation.
And I do not even have to make the point, science continuously make the point itself as scientific "truths" are being challenged and modified all the time.
You claim:
"No, scientists are quite certain of the data from dating methods used, you nor anyone else do not have grounds to argue that research."That statement is absolutely ridiculous. If scientists are so certain about their methods used and if nobody has grounds to challenge those certainties...why do we still practice science then?
You are making an argument against science itself. How to practice science if it is not allowed to challenge scientific "certainties"?
Is not the whole purpose of science that it should be challenged, and who are you to determine other people do not have grounds to argue research?
: 4WD Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 12:30:44
I don't know of a single person on this board who makes that claim.
Barbarian does. See thread "Why do they teach evolution as fact in public schools" and this thread #287
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 22:20:54
That statement is absolutely ridiculous. If scientists are so certain about their methods used and if nobody has grounds to challenge those certainties...why do we still practice science then?
You are making an argument against science itself. How to practice science if it is not allowed to challenge scientific "certainties"?
Is not the whole purpose of science that it should be challenged, and who are you to determine other people do not have grounds to argue research?
No it is not ridiculous in the slightest, you have no business arguing against published research unless you yourself have research that nullifies or supersedes the specific research.
: Alan Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 22:53:25
No it is not ridiculous in the slightest, you have no business arguing against published research unless you yourself have research that nullifies or supersedes the specific research.
Ah, now it becomes interesting. So as long as scientific research is published it becomes truth and may not be disputed until undeniable evidence to the contrary is found.
Scientific censorship, yeah that's the way to go.
: 4WD Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 07:04:30
So then when, say, a baby such as Charlie Gard is born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome you believe that is God's creation. Interesting. Hideous but interesting.
You are being your usual contradictory self again.
You believe that God created Adam and Eve as mortal beings. So someday they would have died of natural cause such as heart failure, some other malfunction of the body or even a DNA related breakdown. But still Adam and Eve were created. Which by the way raises the question...how do you know Adam and Eve did not die of a genetic disease that was implanted in them from the moment of their creation?
But if a baby is born with a genetic disease or physical malfunction, then the child most definitely cannot be a creation of God?
: AVZ Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 23:09:49
You are being your usual contradictory self again.
You believe that God created Adam and Eve as mortal beings. So someday they would have died of natural cause such as heart failure, some other malfunction of the body or even a DNA related breakdown. But still Adam and Eve were created. Which by the way raises the question...how do you know Adam and Eve did not die of a genetic disease that was implanted in them from the moment of their creation?
But if a baby is born with a genetic disease or physical malfunction, then the child most definitely cannot be a creation of God?
Wouldn't that sort of ruin your notion that man was created as a perfect being in a perfect world in a perfect universe and it only went awry when Adam sinned?
: Amo Sat Aug 12, 2017 - 15:05:20If evolution is a false testimony, those who have propagated it will not be there either.
I hope that is not what you think determines who will be saved. Because, ironically, that is false "testimony".
: 4WD Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 05:40:24
Wouldn't that sort of ruin your notion that man was created as a perfect being in a perfect world in a perfect universe and it only went awry when Adam sinned?
Not at all. Posts like yours confirm how shallow your theology is.
According to you death was part of God's creation from the onset...but when a child dies you claim it could impossibly be Gods creation.
How delightfully inconsistent you are.
: AVZ Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 05:57:08
Not at all. Posts like yours confirm how shallow your theology is.
According to you death was part of God's creation from the onset...but when a child dies you claim it could impossibly be Gods creation.
How delightfully inconsistent you are.
Was God's creation perfect in every way? If so who changed it and why did God give them [him?] the power to change it? Why didn't He just make it that way to begin with?
: 4WD Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 06:03:26
Was God's creation perfect in every way? If so who changed it and why did God give them [him?] the power to change it? Why didn't He just make it that way to begin with?
Why are you asking me this question? I am not the one who contradicts himself.
: AVZ Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 06:45:32
Why are you asking me this question? I am not the one who contradicts himself.
Actually, you do all the time. You just don't know it, not actually understanding even the basics of logic.
: 4WD Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 07:08:48
Actually, you do all the time. You just don't know it, not actually understanding even the basics of logic.
Example?
Barbarian does. See thread "Why do they teach evolution as fact in public schools" and this thread #287
Fact is, humans are apes. Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than either is to other apes. However, humans did not evolve from any species of ape we see today.
Genetic, anatomical, and other evidence shows this to be true. Would you like to learn how we know?
: Sonofason Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 16:19:30
Michael said:
Are they all begotten children or adopted?
Indeed, I said, "Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God."
Lets have a look at verse 1 in context with verse 2 and see what God is talking about here.
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(1 John 5:1-2)
Okay now. Verse one says that if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are children of God. When we accept this fact, we must also acknowledge that Jesus is also begotten of the father and is indeed a son of God. Yet Jesus was with the Father prior to Creation. He is also the Christ which makes him unique from all other sons and daughters of God, and we call him "The Son of God" which sets him apart from all other sons and daughters of God. By what power is Christ the Son of God? Is it not by the Power of God's Holy Spirit. Was not the physical manifestation of Jesus, the man, conceived and manifested by the Holy Spirit? How indeed, and by what power is a simple man adopted and received into the body of Christ, and into the family of God? Is it not by that same spirit, God's Holy Spirit?
The second part of verse 1 says that everyone that loves God loves his children. Verse 2 says that we can know that we love these children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. Do you see we have come full circle. Everyone who loves God loves his children. If we love God, we keep his commandments. If we keep his commandments, we know we love God's children.
Now take your eyes to verse 18:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."
a reasonable translation:
We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin. Rather, everyone who is born of God keeps himself from sin, and that wicked one cannot touch him.
I am not suggesting that the interpretation I have given is right. I am not demanding that yours is wrong. I have put forth what I believe is a reasonable interpretation that ought to cause everyone to stop and think. Are you really so confident in your interpretation despite the risk condemning God's children?
I was only asking. I understand where you are coming from, as to why you said that they are all begotten children of God. Now, why do I asked? Because we have scriptures such as:
Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Ephesians 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Also, consider what John, who wrote the subject verse you cited, says in the ff:
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
In verse 12, John speaks of them who receive, that is, believe in Jesus Christ, that God gave them the
right to become children of God. And he describes them in verse 13 as to have been born of God. And while he speaks of them as being born of God, the idea of them having been begotten is absent here, rather, the idea is that of having the right to become children of God, which is in harmony with what Paul speaks about concerning the believers in the above cited passages, which is, the adoption as sons.
: Sonofason Sun Aug 13, 2017 - 16:32:19
Furthermore, the Scriptures, according to the King James Version of the Bible tells us that Issac was the only begotten son of Abraham. How do you resolve this absolute contradiction?
I resolve it by understanding that "only begotten" may not have been the intended meaning of the Greek word that was originally written. In fact, I would suggest that the true sense of the word used means unique, uniquely begotten, or even beloved.
That's a very good observation. I looked at the Greek word translated "only begotten" and is the word "monogenes" which could be taken to mean "only", "only-begotten", "unique".
So, knowing that Isaac is not the only son nor only begotten son of Abraham, it is safe to take the word monegenes here to take the meaning of "unique", which may well be by reason that Isaac was born of Sarah who was barren and begotten according to God's promise , that is, supernaturally, compared to the other sons of Abraham who were naturally begotten.
In the case of Jesus, the word monogenes may be taken as "unique" by reason of a supernatural birth, but also as "only-begotten" since the Father himself testified of having begotten Him. And we hear from Jesus that He said of himself as coming forth from God. We know of no other who was said to have been begotten of God and have come forth from God.
Present observations of these constants are not indicative for the past. They are assumed to have been constant, but nobody can tell if they indeed have always been and for how long they have been.
Actually, there are a number of ways to check on that.
First, isochrons, using daughter isotopes in rock, can demonstrate the actual age of the rock:
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/imgnuc/rbsrstep2.gif)
Second, radioactive decay produces ionizing radiation. If all the daughter isotope happened in a few thousand years, it would have fried every living thing on Earth.
Third, we have at least one example of a very ancient concentration of radioactive elements to as to have formed a reactor (Oklo Reactor). It worked just as uranium breakdown works today.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 13:09:59
Actually, there are a number of ways to check on that.
First, isochrons, using daughter isotopes in rock, can demonstrate the actual age of the rock:
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/imgnuc/rbsrstep2.gif)
Second, radioactive decay produces ionizing radiation. If all the daughter isotope happened in a few thousand years, it would have fried every living thing on Earth.
Third, we have at least one example of a very ancient concentration of radioactive elements to as to have formed a reactor (Oklo Reactor). It worked just as uranium breakdown works today.
You make the assumption that the rock you are measuring started off in a molten state.
And that, according to creationists, is not a necessity if God decided to form an earth that was solid.
You do therefore not know how many daughter isotopes were already present at the formation of the rock.
But once again, I have no beef with the age of the earth itself because Genesis does not mention when exactly the earth itself was formed.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 10:10:34
Fact is, humans are apes. Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than either is to other apes. However, humans did not evolve from any species of ape we see today.
Genetic, anatomical, and other evidence shows this to be true. Would you like to learn how we know?
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes. I have no problem with that, as that is your honest conviction. Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught. That the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. So that's how God created Adam, the first creature of the humankind. Now Eve, the second to be created of the humankind, the Lord God created by taking a rib from Adam, and which He made into a woman. And from the written scriptures, the implication is that both Adam and Eve were created, not as babes, but as adults. And from their union as husband and wife, so came the generation of mankind. And so, we have different convictions.
With regards the creation of man which you believe is by evolution, what can you say of this scriptures?
Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that
God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier time than when it was actually created? That God can create something, which you believe was created by evolution, in its 'evolved state' as we have it today?And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so? If this cannot be ascertained, will that not make what science have come up with, as all to be based on assumptions? I don't know how or if science can, but I think that science have to first ascertain that what God have created in the beginning, whether all were initially of 'zero' age at the instant of creation.
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human. Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes? Or do you not consider him to be so for some reason, perhaps since he was born supernaturally?
These are just some of the questions that come to my mind if I were to consider your convictions. And these questions also goes to those who have the same or similar conviction as Barbarian with regards creation by evolution.
: Michael2012 Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 10:18:19
Indeed, I said, "Those of us who love God are all begotten children of God."
Lets have a look at verse 1 in context with verse 2 and see what God is talking about here.
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
(1 John 5:1-2)
Okay now. Verse one says that if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are children of God. When we accept this fact, we must also acknowledge that Jesus is also begotten of the father and is indeed a son of God. Yet Jesus was with the Father prior to Creation. He is also the Christ which makes him unique from all other sons and daughters of God, and we call him "The Son of God" which sets him apart from all other sons and daughters of God. By what power is Christ the Son of God? Is it not by the Power of God's Holy Spirit. Was not the physical manifestation of Jesus, the man, conceived and manifested by the Holy Spirit? How indeed, and by what power is a simple man adopted and received into the body of Christ, and into the family of God? Is it not by that same spirit, God's Holy Spirit?
The second part of verse 1 says that everyone that loves God loves his children. Verse 2 says that we can know that we love these children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. Do you see we have come full circle. Everyone who loves God loves his children. If we love God, we keep his commandments. If we keep his commandments, we know we love God's children.
Now take your eyes to verse 18:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not."
a reasonable translation:
We know that everyone who is born of God does not sin. Rather, everyone who is born of God keeps himself from sin, and that wicked one cannot touch him.
I am not suggesting that the interpretation I have given is right. I am not demanding that yours is wrong. I have put forth what I believe is a reasonable interpretation that ought to cause everyone to stop and think. Are you really so confident in your interpretation despite the risk condemning God's children?
I was only asking. I understand where you are coming from, as to why you said that they are all begotten children of God. Now, why do I asked? Because we have scriptures such as:
Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Ephesians 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Also, consider what John, who wrote the subject verse you cited, says in the ff:
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
In verse 12, John speaks of them who receive, that is, believe in Jesus Christ, that God gave them the right to become children of God. And he describes them in verse 13 as to have been born of God. And while he speaks of them as being born of God, the idea of them having been begotten is absent here, rather, the idea is that of having the right to become children of God, which is in harmony with what Paul speaks about concerning the believers in the above cited passages, which is, the adoption as sons.
Of course, I understand where you are coming from as well. I must again press the point that I don't really know the answer, and that I understand that your interpretation may indeed be the better interpretation. I began with trying to present a logical argument to support my claim, but have decided rather to quote a well known Bible Commentary by John Gill regarding this matter we're discussing. It appears to me, from his perspective we're both right. Here's what he says regarding the second part of 1 John 5:1, which reads:
"
and everyone that loveth him that begat;that is, God the Father, who has begotten them again to a lively hope, according to his abundant mercy and sovereign will; and as he is their Father that has begotten them, they cannot but love him: and such an one
loveth him also that is begotten of him;not only Jesus Christ, who by nature is the only begotten of the Father; for those who know God to be their Father by adoption and regeneration, will love Christ, who is the Son of God by nature; see ( John 8:42 ) ; but also every regenerate person, all that are born of God; since they are the children of the same Father with them, belong to the same household and family, and bear the image and likeness of their heavenly Father on them."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-john-5-1.html
The point is, we who believe that Jesus, the "only begotten Son of God"
is the Christ are indeed sons and daughters of God. Yes, Jesus is King. He is Lord and Savior to all of us who have been born of the Spirit of God. We love God. And we love all of God's sons and daughters, from Christ our King to the very least of us. Tell me my dear friend, which of your children shall you condemn to hell? Yes, some children are more obedient than others. Are you willing to condemn your least obedient child to hell?
I don't think so. God isn't condemning any of his kids either.
: Michael2012 Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 10:41:30
That's a very good observation. I looked at the Greek word translated "only begotten" and is the word "monogenes" which could be taken to mean "only", "only-begotten", "unique".
So, knowing that Isaac is not the only son nor only begotten son of Abraham, it is safe to take the word monegenes here to take the meaning of "unique", which may well be by reason that Isaac was born of Sarah who was barren and begotten according to God's promise , that is, supernaturally, compared to the other sons of Abraham who were naturally begotten.
In the case of Jesus, the word monogenes may be taken as "unique" by reason of a supernatural birth, but also as "only-begotten" since the Father himself testified of having begotten Him. And we hear from Jesus that He said of himself as coming forth from God. We know of no other who was said to have been begotten of God and have come forth from God.
I agree. I searched for it but didn't find it anywhere except outside the context of scripture. Example:
"
Men who obey and love God as sons are begotten of Him (John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18;"
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/begotten/
Yet, when I searched those verses, no form of the word begotten was used for any son of daughter of God other than Jesus.
: Michael2012 Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 19:47:11
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes. I have no problem with that, as that is your honest conviction. Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught. That the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. So that's how God created Adam, the first creature of the humankind. Now Eve, the second to be created of the humankind, the Lord God created by taking a rib from Adam, and which He made into a woman. And from the written scriptures, the implication is that both Adam and Eve were created, not as babes, but as adults. And from their union as husband and wife, so came the generation of mankind. And so, we have different convictions.
With regards the creation of man which you believe is by evolution, what can you say of this scriptures?
Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier time than when it was actually created? That God can create something, which you believe was created by evolution, in its 'evolved state' as we have it today?And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so? If this cannot be ascertained, will that not make what science have come up with, as all to be based on assumptions? I don't know how or if science can, but I think that science have to first ascertain that what God have created in the beginning, whether all were initially of 'zero' age at the instant of creation.
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human. Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes? Or do you not consider him to be so for some reason, perhaps since he was born supernaturally?
These are just some of the questions that come to my mind if I were to consider your convictions. And these questions also goes to those who have the same or similar conviction as Barbarian with regards creation by evolution.
I do not know if evolution is true. I believe it could be true. I find it to be a reasonable theory. However, I've not yet been convinced by the supposed overwhelming evidence that many people believe exists. I simply find it reasonable.
So the question is, is evolution compatible with the Bible, which I believe is true? Well, the Bible hasn't let me down yet.
Consider the discussion you and I just had about being born again. We were talking about being "born" again, and questioning if being born is the same thing as being begotten. You were saying it was not the same. I was saying it was the same. You had some good evidence to support your belief. I thought I had some decent evidence to support my perspective. When man first conceived of the word, the verb "to be born", what was he thinking? Was he thinking about the living beings that were emerging into the world from a mother's womb? Or was he perhaps thinking of something new coming forth, like a new idea that emerges from a mind? Do we know? Does it matter?
I see many people criticize the words of the Bible, such as when it speaks of talking snakes and talking donkeys, or the dome of the earth. What is a dome anyway? I read that a dome is a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure, typically with a circular base. Is the sky a roof? We're dealing with ideas here; concepts of human beings, each of which has his own brain, and his own perspective. To some people the sky is nothing like the roof of a building. To me, I suppose it could be. It shields us from solar radiation, Thank God. And I've met quite a few snakes in my time, and most of them are still walking and talking.
The point is metaphor, metaphor, metaphor.
Can God make a donkey talk? Of course he can. Did He? Well, I don't know. I wasn't there. The Bible says a donkey talked. I have to say that a donkey did talk. Is Satan a reptile? I don't know. I thought he was a fallen angel, but I'm sure he's a snake.
The dust:
If you were to rub your hands together, what is it that falls on the ground? Well it is dander. Dander is comprised of skin cells mostly which includes DNA, proteins, and well, all sorts of stuff. When these tiny bunches of matter become removed from the living body, and fall onto the floor, and we sweep them up into a little pile, we have dust. We are dust. Carl Sagan tells us we are star dust. Was he wrong? I don't know. He could be right.
Where did the first DNA molecule come from? The term biology is derived from the Greek word βίος, bios, "life" and the suffix -λογία, -logia, "study of."
Does all life contain either DNA and/or RNA? How did the first life forms get their DNA and/or RNA? God had said, "Let the earth bring forth life" and "Let the waters bring forth life". Did God already place in the earth the necessary ingredients for the earth and the water to fulfill this task? Of course. Life came about because God made it possible for such things as DNA and RNA and proteins and enzymes to form, without the presence of life; and the simple became more complex. It's rather astounding when you think about it. To me, the fact that God made it possible for the earth to bring forth life is so much more amazing than to have, in the words of most atheists "magically popped every living species into existence as is from nothing". Could He have done that? Of course. Did He?
Let's go back...we discovered in our previous conversation that we can be born of the flesh, and we can be born of the spirit. We know that everyone, whether they are born again or not are alive, unless of course they have died. God breathed into Adam life. Adam was a physical living being. Was he born again? Did Adam have in Him what it takes to have eternal life? He had life. Did he have eternal life? Are there two kinds of life? If so, which kind of life did God breath into Adam's nostrils? Adam was formed of the dust of the ground. In other words, everything you find in Adam you can find on the ground. He had nostrils. So he must have been alive. God then breathed life into Adam. How can this be, unless we are speaking of the second kind of life. Did Adam have eternal life? Yes he did, and then he sinned and had to die. Before the fall, man was eternal. Afterwards he had to die a physical death. From then on eternal life would be given only by the grace of God. Sins had to be paid for. Life would require redemption. Is Adam in heaven? I don't know. I hope so.
The Bible tells us that "All things came into being through Him (God's Son), and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men." "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Indeed man became a living being, but in what sense?
When we read our Bibles, we have to consider who wrote it. Did men write it? Or did God write it? I think we need to decide.
Please forgive my ramblings. I've got much to say on the subject, but I don't want to bog anyone down. Feel free to critique these ideas...I know they're a complete shambles.
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes.
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
I have no problem with that, as that is your honest conviction.
Evidence. If you see all the evidence, there's no way to dodge it.
Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught.
Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. That wasn't important to God. What was important was that He directly gave us immortal souls.
It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.
With regards the creation of man which you believe is by evolution, what can you say of this scriptures?
All one can say is that it's consistent with evolution.
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier time than when it was actually created?
Can God be deceptive? He could if He so chose. But it is contrary to His nature.
That God can create something, which you believe was created by evolution, in its 'evolved state' as we have it today?
If you believe that what God can do, is a guide to what He did do, there really isn't much you can rule out.
And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so?
God is truth, and therefore not deceptive.
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human.
He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents. So yes. Like us. Fully human, and yet fully God.
Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes?
Why should you be ashamed of being an ape? We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man.
These are just some of the questions that come to my mind if I were to consider your convictions. And these questions also goes to those who have the same or similar conviction as Barbarian with regards creation by evolution.
You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates. "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it. There's no need for that. We aren't our bodies. We have a body. We are souls.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
Evidence. If you see all the evidence, there's no way to dodge it.
Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. That wasn't important to God. What was important was that He directly gave us immortal souls.
It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.
All one can say is that it's consistent with evolution.
Can God be deceptive? He could if He so chose. But it is contrary to His nature.
If you believe that what God can do, is a guide to what He did do, there really isn't much you can rule out.
God is truth, and therefore not deceptive.
He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents. So yes. Like us. Fully human, and yet fully God.
Why should you be ashamed of being an ape? We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man.
You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates. "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it. There's no need for that. We aren't our bodies. We have a body. We are souls.
Indeed, we are not just physical entities animated by atomic forces, we are souls indeed. We're not just alive, by the grace of God we have life.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 10:10:34
Fact is, humans are apes. Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than either is to other apes. However, humans did not evolve from any species of ape we see today.
Genetic, anatomical, and other evidence shows this to be true. Would you like to learn how we know?
Alan,
I presume you agree with Barbarian?
: AVZ Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 05:50:14
Alan,
I presume you agree with Barbarian?
Yes, it's the most reasonable explanation for our present life form, much research confirms it to be fact.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes.
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
And so you were taught and convinced by the evidence presented to you and have seen.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
I have no problem with that, as that is your honest conviction
Evidence. If you see all the evidence, there's no way to dodge it.
I have no problem if you have seen what to you are evidence. The point is, that is your conviction, but not mine. And while we differ I have no problem with that, or do you?
Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in the miracles written in scriptures especially those which Jesus performed? In the days of Christ when he actually performed the miracles, which people have seen happened before their very eyes, if not, have overwhelming testimony of witnesses to these miraculous events, people still did not believe despite the evidence. I'm quite sure that you believe that these miracles happened and were performed by Jesus. Why do you believe? Is it because of the evidence or of your conviction? Scientists would say, according to science, these things were not possible and so are false. Are they correct about science in this or is the Bible lying?
Now, creation was a miracle, don't you think so? Would you think that the miracle of creation, things that scientist says are not possible and are false, and things that can't be proven by science, can now be explained and proven by great and brilliant scientist through science and even the wisdom of men? Has man and science 'evolved' into this? I don't have any such conviction? Do you?
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael:
Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught.
Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. That wasn't important to God. What was important was that He directly gave us immortal souls.
It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.
And so we ought to leave the issue in that case, since in your view, scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
With regards the creation of man which you believe is by evolution, what can you say of this scriptures?
Luke 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
All one can say is that it's consistent with evolution.
How can you say that it's consistent with evolution? Or how is it consistent with evolution?
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier than when it was actually created?
Can God be deceptive? He could if He so chose. But it is contrary to His nature.
Why would God be deceptive by that? What is the deception and who is the one being deceived? What does this deception result to?
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
That God can create something, which you believe was created by evolution, in its 'evolved state' as we have it today?
If you believe that what God can do, is a guide to what He did do, there really isn't much you can rule out.
Michael said:
And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so?
God is truth, and therefore not deceptive.
Who says that what God can do is a guide to what He did do? Of course that is not the point. The point is and my argument is, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so?
The truth of the matter is, God can and God could have. And if God did, and we know that God does not deceive, any thought of deception or if there is deception, it could only come from the father of it, the devil. And what is the deception? I'd say it may well be similar to the first deception in the Garden of Eden, taking advantage of appearance, which in this case, by the appearance of age. And the lie is somewhat similar, that we will somewhat be like God, knowing things that only God can possibly know. In connection to this, let me cite the verse you cited in one of your post here. Here's what is written in scriptures which concerns the work of God, which includes God's work of creation:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that
no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. : The Barbarian Mon Aug 14, 2017 - 22:41:11
Michael said:
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human.
He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents. So yes. Like us. Fully human, and yet fully God.
Michael said:
Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes?
Why should you be ashamed of being an ape? We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man.
You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates. "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it. There's no need for that. We aren't our bodies. We have a body. We are souls.
So you say and affirm that Jesus is an ape.
Now, there is no other issue here but that if Jesus is an ape or not. There is no issue whatsoever with regards emotions or shame here.
Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
And so you were taught and convinced by the evidence presented to you and have seen.
Reality has the virtue of being true. That's why evidence works.
Quote from: The Barbarian on Yesterday at 22:41:11
Do you believe in miracles?
As St. Augustine said, even nature is a miracle. But I don't believe in making up miracles to patch up problems in my beliefs.
Scientists would say, according to science, these things were not possible and so are false.
Nope. Who told you that? What a silly idea. My first course in evolution as an undergraduate was taught by a devout Christian who was on the board of vestry for his local church. Most people who think they hate science, have no idea what it is.
Are they correct about science in this or is the Bible lying?
Neither. Someone lied to you about science. Science can't say anything about the supernatural, so it doesn't in any way rule out miracles.
Barbarian observes:
It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.
And so we ought to leave the issue in that case
As a religious doctrine, yes. It's an open question as far as scriptures go. However, the evidence does show us that humans evolved from other organisms. Similarly, protons are not in evidence from scripture, but we can show that they exist.
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier than when it was actually created?
Bartbarian asks:
Can God be deceptive? He could if He so chose. But it is contrary to His nature.
Why would God be deceptive by that?
Creating something with the appearance of age, when it was not aged, is deceptive.
Barbarian observes:
If you believe that what God can do, is a guide to what He did do, there really isn't much you can rule out.
And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so?
Because it's neither scriptural nor is it supported by evidence.
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human.
Barbarian observes:
He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents. So yes. Like us. Fully human, and yet fully God.
Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes?
Barbarian asks:
Why should you be ashamed of being an ape? We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man. We are not our bodies, we are souls who have bodies. Do you honestly think there's a physical difference of any consequence to God between a human body and a chimp body? Do you not see that it is the living soul that matters, not our physical bodies?
You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates. "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it. There's no need for that. We aren't our bodies. We have a body. We are souls.
So you say and affirm that Jesus is an ape.
Jesus is God. He is also fully human, a soul in the body of an evolved primate. Like us. He became fully human.
Now, there is no other issue here but that if Jesus is an ape or not.
If you actually think humans are no more than apes, then that would be the issue. But for a Christian, it would be like saying a human is no more than an animal. Is that what you want to believe?
There is no issue whatsoever with regards emotions or shame here.
It's at the heart of what's holding you away from accepting His creation as it is. You don't want to accept that your body is the result of evolution from other primates. Set your pride aside and accept it His way.
Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
As St. Augustine said, even nature is a miracle. But I don't believe in making up miracles to patch up problems in my beliefs.
You mean natural and scientific impossibilities like the resurrection?
You mean natural and scientific impossibilities like the resurrection?
The resurrection is part of scripture. So not "made up" like so many imagined creationist miracles. But the key to this is that science doesn't deny the possibility of miracles.
Science can't say anything about the resurrection. But scientists can.
Once you figure out why, you're almost there.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 19:44:51
The resurrection is part of scripture. So not "made up" like so many imagined creationist miracles. But the key to this is that science doesn't deny the possibility of miracles.
Science can't say anything about the resurrection. But scientists can.
Once you figure out why, you're almost there.
So what you are saying is this:
It is a scientific impossibility that something came from nothing, but since it happened anyway it must have happened by naturalistic means...or perhaps guided by an external agent who is not bound by the laws of our universe.
This external agent, since He will not contradict the laws of nature (else He would be deceptive) used natural, scientifically explicable means to bring this universe into existence.
On the other hand, that same external agent did contradict the laws of nature and used scientifically inexplicable means to resurrect His Son from the death.
This however does not make Him deceptive.
Seems to me you are arbitrarily selective about which part of scripture you accept, even though both of them invoke a miraculous event...for one you insist on scientific evidence, whilst for the other you are prepared to completely reject scientific evidence that proves the contrary.
AVZ writes:
So what you are saying is this:
Unless it's a direct quote the odds are very good that you got it wrong yet again.
It is a scientific impossibility that something came from nothing,
I never said that. Do you honestly believe that?
but since it happened anyway it must have happened by naturalistic means...or perhaps guided by an external agent who is not bound by the laws of our universe.
Pretty close, except that science can't say anything about the origin of the Universe, and of course, until nature existed, it makes no sense to suppose nature was used to make nature. As C.S. Lewis put it, the witch knew the magic at the beginning, but did not know the deep magic just before the beginning.
This external agent, since He will not contradict the laws of nature (else He would be deceptive) used natural, scientifically explicable means to bring this universe into existence.
Wrong again. It makes no sense to say that nature was produced by natural means. Science just can't say what there was just before the beginning.
On the other hand, that same external agent did contradict the laws of nature and used scientifically inexplicable means to resurrect His Son from the death.
This however does not make Him dceptive.
Science can't address miracles, but does not deny that they can happen. Actually Jesus, being God was the agent of His own resurrection, BTW.
It's one thing to recognize in scripture a miracle. It's quite another to gin up your own imagined miracles to cover problems with your doctrines. The key is, God doesn't have to do miracles to make things work. He created the universe as He wanted it to be, and there's no tinkering neccessary. He doesn't have to do miracles. He does them to teach us something.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 22:09:21
AVZ writes:
Unless it's a direct quote the odds are very good that you got it wrong yet again.
I never said that. Do you honestly believe that?
Pretty close, except that science can't say anything about the origin of the Universe, and of course, until nature existed, it makes no sense to suppose nature was used to make nature. As C.S. Lewis put it, the witch knew the magic at the beginning, but did not know the deep magic just before the beginning.
Wrong again. It makes no sense to say that nature was produced by natural means. Science just can't say what there was just before the beginning.
Science can't address miracles, but does not deny that they can happen. Actually Jesus, being God was the agent of His own resurrection, BTW.
It's one thing to recognize in scripture a miracle. It's quite another to gin up your own imagined miracles to cover problems with your doctrines. The key is, God doesn't have to do miracles to make things work. He created the universe as He wanted it to be, and there's no tinkering neccessary. He doesn't have to do miracles. He does them to teach us something.
You are stuck in circular reasoning.
The whole reason why you deny a miraculous creation event of 7 literal days is because science proves you otherwise.
But science also proves that resurrection is impossible, yet you are prepared to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of something unscientific.
You claim to follow scientific evidence where it leads, but quite obviously you arbitrarily reject science if it suits you.
Whatever swing you give to it, as a theistic evolutionist you are appealing to a miracle at some point in time, and with that you must admit you are appealing to the inexplicable.
Yet with the same breath you insist that the inexplicable event must have followed an explicable pattern.
I am quite comfortable with believing in a literal 7 day creation. I don't insist science must come to my aid and help explain it to me, neither do I expect science to explain the resurrection to me. I know science can't.
First we had Darwinism which science already figured out was incorrect, so now we have neo-Darwinism which is presently losing ground rapidly with the discovery of DNA.
Since the proposition of evolution, scientists have done nothing else but tell the world something is true...and come back after a number of years telling the world it wasn't true after all but now we have something else which is true.
If creation was a miracle, and I believe it was, then science can tell me nothing. And I am not even unscientific about that because science itself promulgates it knows nothing about miracles.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
So, you were taught and convinced, and so believe that men all are apes.
Comes down to evidence.
Barbarian said:
The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
Michael said:
And so you were taught and convinced by the evidence presented to you and have seen.
Reality has the virtue of being true. That's why evidence works.
The point is just that you were taught and convinced by the evidence presented to you and have seen.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in the miracles written in scriptures especially those which Jesus performed? In the days of Christ when he actually performed the miracles, which people have seen happened before their very eyes, if not, have overwhelming testimony of witnesses to these miraculous events, people still did not believe despite the evidence. I'm quite sure that you believe that these miracles happened and were performed by Jesus. Why do you believe? Is it because of the evidence or of your conviction? Scientists would say, according to science, these things were not possible and so are false. Are they correct about science in this or is the Bible lying?
Now, creation was a miracle, don't you think so? Would you think that the miracle of creation, things that scientist says are not possible and are false, and things that can't be proven by science, can now be explained and proven by great and brilliant scientist through science and even the wisdom of men? Has man and science 'evolved' into this? I don't have any such conviction? Do you?
As St. Augustine said, even nature is a miracle. But I don't believe in making up miracles to patch up problems in my beliefs.
I don't think you have addressed what I have posted.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Scientists would say, according to science, these things were not possible and so are false.
Nope. Who told you that? What a silly idea. My first course in evolution as an undergraduate was taught by a devout Christian who was on the board of vestry for his local church. Most people who think they hate science, have no idea what it is.
Let me say that again. Scientists would say that science have no explanation, and so cannot explain miracles. And so, such things, men, even with the wisdom in science, cannot know and explain miracles, miracles such as are spoken of in scriptures, which includes the miracle of creation.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Are they correct about science in this or is the Bible lying?
Neither. Someone lied to you about science. Science can't say anything about the supernatural, so it doesn't in any way rule out miracles.
If you believe that creation is a miracle, and science can't say anything about the supernatural, then
why do scientists, by science, keep trying to deal with creation, as coming up with various theories concerning the supernatural matter of creation and expect to explain the supernatural? Unless, they believe to the contrary that they can. Or they believe that creation is not a miracle.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Though I would have to say I don't have the same conviction as you do. My conviction is that, men were not created by God by evolution, but were created as scriptures taught.
Barbarian said:
Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. That wasn't important to God. What was important was that He directly gave us immortal souls.
It's not a salvation issue if you want to assume that this is a literal history instead of a parable.
Michael said:
And so we ought to leave the issue in that case, since in your view, scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth.
As a religious doctrine, yes. It's an open question as far as scriptures go. However, the evidence does show us that humans evolved from other organisms. Similarly, protons are not in evidence from scripture, but we can show that they exist.
If in your conviction, by the things that you take as evidence and have seen, and were presented to you through science, and believe that humans evolved from other organisms and take that as how God have created man from the ground, it does not follow that, that is how God actually did it. For even you admit that scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. Besides, you say that, that wasn't important to God. But it seems that is important to you.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Does that not give you the idea that God can create something which is initially to be of age, that which when science examines it, finds it to have been created at a time much earlier than when it was actually created?
Bartbarian said:
Can God be deceptive? He could if He so chose. But it is contrary to His nature.
Michael said:
Why would God be deceptive by that?
Creating something with the appearance of age, when it was not aged, is deceptive.
Again, who then do you say God is deceiving by that? What does this deception result to?
Also, I'm not sure if you have read what I said in my post:
...if God did, and we know that God does not deceive, any thought of deception or if there is deception, it could only come from the father of it, the devil......
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
And I am thinking, if God can create like so, how can we be certain that God did not create creation like so?
Bartbarian said:
Because it's neither scriptural nor is it supported by evidence.
So are you now implying that you are certain that God created creation by what you now teach and believe, that is, of an initial creation of light, then went through the process of evolution, and imply that this is both scriptural and is supported by evidence? And that even while you believe and say that Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. So, why go beyond what is written? And why keep insisting you know how God created things and living things when it is said, and let me cite the verse you cited in one of your post here, as written in scriptures which concerns the work of God, which includes God's work of creation:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that
no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
With regards your conviction, what can you say of Jesus? I assume that you believe that he is a human.
Barbarian said:
He humbled himself, becoming fully human, subject to His parents. So yes. Like us. Fully human, and yet fully God.
Michael said:
Was he an ape, since he was a human and since humans are apes?
Barbarian said:
Why should you be ashamed of being an ape? We are creatures, evolved from other apes, and Jesus took that nature in becoming man. We are not our bodies, we are souls who have bodies. Do you honestly think there's a physical difference of any consequence to God between a human body and a chimp body? Do you not see that it is the living soul that matters, not our physical bodies?
You're having an emotional difficulty with having a body that evolved from other primates. "Ape" has such a negative connotation to many people that they respond with disgust to it. There's no need for that. We aren't our bodies. We have a body. We are souls.
Michael said:
So you say and affirm that Jesus is an ape.
Jesus is God. He is also fully human, a soul in the body of an evolved primate. Like us. He became fully human.
You can just say "Yes, Jesus is an ape, since he is a human and humans are apes, like all man are".
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
Now, there is no other issue here but that if Jesus is an ape or not.
If you actually think humans are no more than apes, then that would be the issue. But for a Christian, it would be like saying a human is no more than an animal. Is that what you want to believe?
What I think of humans? They are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category. That is what I believe, for that is what
God, not some man, tells me of man in scriptures.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 15, 2017 - 11:20:04
Michael said:
There is no issue whatsoever with regards emotions or shame here.
It's at the heart of what's holding you away from accepting His creation as it is. You don't want to accept that your body is the result of evolution from other primates. Set your pride aside and accept it His way.
Comes down to evidence. The same genetic evidence that is used to determine paternity shows that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was not an ancestor of other apes.
You may see it that way, but it's not. I accept what God says in scriptures about His miraculous creation work, not what man says concerning it. And that is not pride at all. It'll be pride if I take and accept what man says about God's work of creation, and believe that man knows how God did the miracle.
: Michael2012 Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 07:27:29What I think of humans? They are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category. That is what I believe, for that is what God, not some man, tells me of man in scriptures.
Do you even know what distinguishes humans and [the rest of the] animals as God created them?
So are you now implying that you are certain that God created creation by what you now teach and believe, that is, of an initial creation of light,
He said so. I believe Him. You should, too.
then went through the process of evolution
Many, many things went on before living things appeared. And only after He created organisms with the ability to vary over time, did evolution begin.
and imply that this is both scriptural and is supported by evidence?
He says that the Earth was quite different at the initial creation, and changed over time. You should believe that, too.
And that even while you believe and say that Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. So, why go beyond what is written?
I'll leave that to creationists.
And why keep insisting you know how God created things and living things
He has shown us in His creation, which as you know, He says is reliable.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
So as you see, He says that his creation is ongoing in time. We will never understand all of it, but He made us so we would understand much of it.
You can just say "Yes, Jesus is an ape, since he is a human and humans are apes, like all man are".
I prefer to regard Jesus and man as more than merely primates, He is God, and we have a living soul that distinguishes us from other animals. Why do you dwell on our animal nature, when it's only a house for our soul?
Barbarian asks:
If you actually think humans are no more than apes, then that would be the issue. But for a Christian, it would be like saying a human is no more than an animal. Is that what you want to believe?
What I think of humans? They are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category.
Man was brought forth from the Earth as the other animals. That is not what makes us precious to God.
: 4WD Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 07:53:56
Do you even know what distinguishes humans and [the rest of the] animals as God created them?
According to scriptures, as I said, humankind are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category.
So, for one, the distinction is clear there, one is man, and the other is animal. Second, man was created in the image of God, while the animals were not.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
So are you now implying that you are certain that God created creation by what you now teach and believe, that is, of an initial creation of light,
He said so. I believe Him. You should, too.
Where did God said that? If in scriptures, please cite it.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
...then went through the process of evolution
Many, many things went on before living things appeared. And only after He created organisms with the ability to vary over time, did evolution begin.
What many many things went on happened before living things appeared?
What organisms with the ability to vary over time did God create? When did he create such and how?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
....and imply that this is both scriptural and is supported by evidence?
He says that the Earth was quite different at the initial creation, and changed over time. You should believe that, too.
Where in scriptures did God said that? Please cite.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
And that even while you believe and say that Scriptures don't tell you exactly how we were produced from the earth. So, why go beyond what is written?
I'll leave that to creationists.
Why is that?
And I ask again, why go beyond what is written?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
And why keep insisting you know how God created things and living things
He has shown us in His creation, which as you know, He says is reliable.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
So as you see, He says that his creation is ongoing in time. We will never understand all of it, but He made us so we would understand much of it.
Not what the verse is saying.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Michael said:
You can just say "Yes, Jesus is an ape, since he is a human and humans are apes, like all man are".
I prefer to regard Jesus and man as more than merely primates, He is God, and we have a living soul that distinguishes us from other animals. Why do you dwell on our animal nature, when it's only a house for our soul?
But it is not the matter of preference as to what you regard of Jesus. I was simply making the point that in your belief, Jesus is an ape like all mankind. That's just it.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 08:21:38
Barbarian said:
If you actually think humans are no more than apes, then that would be the issue. But for a Christian, it would be like saying a human is no more than an animal. Is that what you want to believe?
Michael said:
What I think of humans? They are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category.
Man was brought forth from the Earth as the other animals. That is not what makes us precious to God.
The issue is not what makes man precious to God. The issue is whether man is a creature in the same category as the animals, in the light of scriptures.
: Michael2012 Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 10:50:22
According to scriptures, as I said, humankind are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category.
So, for one, the distinction is clear there, one is man, and the other is animal. Second, man was created in the image of God, while the animals were not.
So man looks like God, but the animals don't. Is that the distinction that you have in mind? Is that the real difference you see between the animals and man?
The issue is not what makes man precious to God. The issue is whether man is a creature in the same category as the animals, in the light of scriptures.
How does the category of man differ from the category of the animals?
: 4WD Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 11:39:12
Michael said:
According to scriptures, as I said, humankind are the kind of what God created in Adam, whom God called man. God did not call him to be an animal, but man ~ Adam. God created the animals, and man is not included in this category.
So, for one, the distinction is clear there, one is man, and the other is animal. Second, man was created in the image of God, while the animals were not.
So man looks like God, but the animals don't. Is that the distinction that you have in mind? Is that the real difference you see between the animals and man?
No. God created man as a living soul, but not the animals.
: 4WD Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 11:39:12
Michael said:
The issue is not what makes man precious to God. The issue is whether man is a creature in the same category as the animals, in the light of scriptures.
How does the category of man differ from the category of the animals?
I've already told you the distinction according to scriptures.
God made the animals, and Adam was not one of them.
God created Adam. God said that Adam was a man. God did not say Adam was an animal, nor a special animal at that which He called man. Now, scientist, through scientific study comes out saying and rationalizing that man is an animal because of so and so. Though my brain tells me the words of the scientist is reasonable, my heart tells me the words of God is the truth. And though I may be to men, unreasonable, fool, stupid, in denial, etc..., as long as I am to God, faithful to His word and the truth, not going beyond what truth He revealed in scriptures, so be it, for the glory of God.
If I be wrong in the interpretation of scriptures, as long as it's out of my faithfulness to scriptures and not because of going beyond and out from what is in scriptures and believe the works and wisdom of men, God still remains to be my judge. I leave it to God and rest upon His mercy, love, and grace.
In Genesis, the first creation was light. God said "let there be light."
Many, many things went on before living things appeared. And only after He created organisms with the ability to vary over time, did evolution begin.
What many many things went on happened before living things appeared?
Matter formed and some of it condensed into stars and galaxies. Some stars were so large that they burned out quickly, and exploded. The shockwave collapsed clouds of gas and formed new stars, one of which was our sun. And from that collapse, the world formed.
What organisms with the ability to vary over time did God create? When did he create such and how?
All of them. He says that the earth brought forth living things, so we know it was done by nature, as He intended.
Barbarian observes:
He says that the Earth was quite different at the initial creation, and changed over time. You should believe that, too.
Where in scriptures did God said that?
Genesis 1. First light, then earth and water, then living things, and so on.
And I ask again, why go beyond what is written?
I suppose it's because creationists aren't satisfied with it as it's written.
Barbarian observes:
He has shown us in His creation, which as you know, He says is reliable.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
So as you see, He says that his creation is ongoing in time. We will never understand all of it, but He made us so we would understand much of it.
Not what the verse is saying.
That's what it says. Things are not made all at once, but in their time. Although we can learn much about His creation, He says will never know all of it. I find that very satisfying.
Barbarian observes:
If we were only our bodies, we would be merely apes. But we aren't our bodies. We are living souls who have bodies. If God could become a human like us, who are we to be embarrassed about being apes?
Barbarian observes:
If you actually think humans are no more than apes, then that would be the issue. But for a Christian, it would be like saying a human is no more than an animal. Is that what you want to believe?
Man's body is like other animals. But that's not what we are.
: 4WD Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 11:39:12
How does the category of man differ from the category of the animals?
This question is irrelevant.
Barbarian claims that man and chimps have a common evolutionary ancestor, so at some point in history there was a life form that was shared by both chimps and man.
This ancestor developed through an evolutionary process into a primate on one hand, and man on the other.
By definition evolution claims that this process was unguided, based on elements like chance, natural selection and survival.
This excludes the involvement of God, because if God was involved then this process would no longer be unguided.
So then, at some point this common ancestor evolved into pre-human life forms, until it reached the point where God looked at it and decided that it had reached a stage where He could "jump in" and add humanity to the life form. So Adam had a father and mother who both were considered apes, and Adam was the son that was made human by God.
According to the logic of the evolution theory, where guidance is excluded, Eve therefore also had a set of parents that were apes. She then was made human by God as well.
Now some people claim that God could have used evolution to reach His goal, but this raises the following questions:
- If God made evolution reach his goal, then evolution could not have been an unguided process based on chance, natural selection and survival.
- If God would have been subject to the undetermined variables that determine the path of evolution, then the creation of man could not have been pre-determined from before creation.
- The evolution of Eve is in direct contradiction with scripture.
- It is a logical contradiction to make the claim that a Creator can use an unguided process to reach a predetermined result. An unguided process by definition cannot be directed and without direction a result cannot be predetermined.
- Gods predetermined plans could therefore not be predetermined. His plans would have evolved gradually and subject to the evolution of life on earth.
Nothing is unguided with God, He knows full well the natural sequence of events prior to them coming to be.
: Alan Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 07:52:12
Nothing is unguided with God, He knows full well the natural sequence of events prior to them coming to be.
Absolutely ! !
Unfortunately we have a whole cadre of misinformed Christians who think that God can know in advance only those things that He specifically causes. It is a major factor of so much misguided theology.
: Alan Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 07:52:12
Nothing is unguided with God, He knows full well the natural sequence of events prior to them coming to be.
That statement is completely unintelligible.
If God had to look what an unguided process would do in order to be informed, then God is guided by natural processes.
So God is subject to His own creation???
You have two options:
A) God looked ahead what an unguided process would do, and if a feasible result would be achieved God would base His plan on that development.
B) God had a plan and assured that the unguided process would follow a pattern that would produce the required result
Now option B logically is a guided process so can be excluded as being evolution.
Option A is more tricky. Not only would this make God's plan subject to evolution...it is also self contradictory.
Imagine God would look ahead at a number of unguided processes and select the one that produced the required result, then the moment God selected that process it would no longer have the possibility to bring forth any other result but the one God foresaw. Hence the process in effect became void of chance, and it can therefore no longer be evolution.
Being a theistic evolutionist does not make sense. You either believe in an unguided process of chance and natural selection and leave God out of it, or you believe in a guided process which then no longer is evolution.
It is unintelligible to propose an unguided process with a certain result.
Either the process is no longer unguided, or the result is not certain.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 21:50:59
In Genesis, the first creation was light. God said "let there be light."
Many, many things went on before living things appeared. And only after He created organisms with the ability to vary over time, did evolution begin.
If the first creation was light, what can you say of darkness?
So, you are saying that God created light at first. And many many things went on regarding light, forming into many many things and until organisms with the ability to vary over time formed? And then evolution begun? Quite a story you have there. How do you know that light formed many many things or formed into many many things? What do you say are these many many things that have formed from light? And what are these many many things that went on until living organisms with the ability to vary over time were formed by these many many things that went on?
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 16, 2017 - 21:50:59
Michael said:
What many many things went on happened before living things appeared?
Matter formed and some of it condensed into stars and galaxies. Some stars were so large that they burned out quickly, and exploded. The shockwave collapsed clouds of gas and formed new stars, one of which was our sun. And from that collapse, the world formed.
So, after many many things, which you apparently have said nothing about yet, went on of light, matter was formed, some condensing into stars and galaxies, and there was some explosions of stars, and so the story goes, until the sun was formed and so too is the world formed. Again, some story you have there.
: AVZ Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 10:23:59
B) God had a plan and assured that the unguided process would follow a pattern that would produce the required result
I accept that premise.: AVZ
Now option B logically is a guided process so can be excluded as being evolution.
If evolution was God's plan, why must it be excluded? Evolution is an observation at our end, it is simply the path of creation for God. : AVZ
Being a theistic evolutionist does not make sense. You either believe in an unguided process of chance and natural selection and leave God out of it, or you believe in a guided process which then no longer is evolution.It is unintelligible to propose an unguided process with a certain result.Either the process is no longer unguided, or the result is not certain.
God said "I want it this way" and it was so. Why is that so difficult to accept? You continually attempt to say you "know" how God does things and it is only by your own reasoning that you refuse any other belief. I reject your philosophy and it's subsequent theology.
#
: Alan Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 12:08:05
If evolution was God's plan, why must it be excluded? Evolution is an observation at our end, it is simply the path of creation for God.
If it is a planned path, then it is a guided process.
If you plan to drive to the supermarket, but you don't guide your car, then you will never arrive at the supermarket.
: Michael2012 Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 11:47:07
Matter formed and some of it condensed into stars and galaxies. Some stars were so large that they burned out quickly, and exploded. The shockwave collapsed clouds of gas and formed new stars, one of which was our sun. And from that collapse, the world formed.
So, after many many things, which you apparently have said nothing about yet, went on of light, matter was formed, some condensing into stars and galaxies, and there was some explosions of stars, and so the story goes, until the sun was formed and so too is the world formed. Again, some story you have there.
Yes it is. The magnitude of it and the glory to God of it all is overwhelming to any who would bother to consider just how much evidence there is to support it.
Was Adam a literal person?
: Texas Conservative Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 13:20:24Was Adam a literal person?
Was there a first human being? Yes, how could there not be? Even with the view of evolution, there was a first hominid to whom God gave him his spirit.
: 4WD Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 13:50:56
Was there a first human being? Yes, how could there not be? Even with the view of evolution, there was a first hominid to whom God gave him his spirit.
So scripture is in error then?
: Texas Conservative Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 17:53:25So scripture is in error then?
No of course not. Why would you think that? You asked if Adam was a literal person. I assume that you meant person as human being. Any hominids, if such existed before Adam, would not have been given the spirit of a human being and would simply be a specie of animal.
: Texas Conservative Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 13:20:24
Was Adam a literal person?
What do you think? If not, what do you think was he?
How about Jesus, was he a literal person?
: 4WD Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 13:50:56
Was there a first human being? Yes, how could there not be? Even with the view of evolution, there was a first hominid to whom God gave him his spirit.
So what came first?
- The hominid through evolution which subsequently was given a spirit by God, or
- The hominoid through evolution, which subsequently became hominid because God gave him a spirit
And how did Eve came to be?
: 4WD Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 18:17:42
No of course not. Why would you think that? You asked if Adam was a literal person. I assume that you meant person as human being. Any hominids, if such existed before Adam, would not have been given the spirit of a human being and would simply be a specie of animal.
God's Word in Genesis said God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, not given a spirit to a species of hominid.
: 4WD Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 18:17:42
No of course not. Why would you think that? You asked if Adam was a literal person. I assume that you meant person as human being. Any hominids, if such existed before Adam, would not have been given the spirit of a human being and would simply be a specie of animal.
Who told you that man is an animal? God or the scientist?
Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
What do you say is the breath of life? Did God, to the animal, gave the breath of life?
Consider Eve.
Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:
"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
Does this verse even suggest of Eve as to have evolved from Adam or have been produced in man? That, the male human being produced the female human being or in the male human being, the female evolved or what?
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that denies that we are all descended from two individuals. Nor is there anything in scripture that denies humans living today evolved from other species of primate.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 21:50:45
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that denies that we are all descended from two individuals. Nor is there anything in scripture that denies humans living today evolved from other species of primate.
The argument of absence.
If scripture does not deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, I therefore conclude that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
And where scripture sheds doubt on such a notion, I just declare it to be allegorical.
: Michael2012 Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 19:54:40Who told you that man is an animal? God or the scientist?
The problem here is that you and so many others have decided that the written word, God's special revelation, is the only revelation we have from God. That is simply not true. We have the general revelation revealed in His creation. Your assumption is that something is true only if it is explicitly stated in the written word. And that is false.
Psa 19:1 For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. So in answer to your question. Yes, God and science. Physically man is an animal, spiritually he is not.
For those that buy evolution and believe at least some of the creation account to be allegory:
Is God powerful enough to have literally done what Genesis says He did?
: 4WD Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 06:17:05
Michael said:
Who told you that man is an animal? God or the scientist?
The problem here is that you and so many others have decided that the written word, God's special revelation, is the only revelation we have from God. That is simply not true. We have the general revelation revealed in His creation. Your assumption is that something is true only if it is explicitly stated in the written word. And that is false.
Psa 19:1 For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
So in answer to your question. Yes, God and science. Physically man is an animal, spiritually he is not.
So God told you that man is an animal. And the scientists also told you that.
Of course what God said of man is not that man is an animal nor a special animal.
For sure it is the scientist who told you that man is an animal.
Yes God is revealed in His creation. And how does that answer the question. Did God, by revelation in creation, tell you that man is an animal? Besides, the things about God that is revealed in creation is His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, such as are plain to us, and does not require one to be a scientist to see.
So, the scientist told you and that is where your belief that man is an animal is coming from.
You really don't have a clue, do you?. Where is the sun and how far away is it? What has God told you about that? Apparently nothing. But He has revealed it to others who have paid attention and studied it. That you haven't doesn't change the truth.
: Michael2012 Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 06:47:17
The problem here is that you and so many others have decided that the written word, God's special revelation, is the only revelation we have from God. That is simply not true. We have the general revelation revealed in His creation. Your assumption is that something is true only if it is explicitly stated in the written word. And that is false.
Psa 19:1 For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
So in answer to your question. Yes, God and science. Physically man is an animal, spiritually he is not.
So God told you that man is an animal. And the scientists also told you that.
Of course what God said of man is not that man is an animal nor a special animal.
For sure it is the scientist who told you that man is an animal.
Yes God is revealed in His creation. And how does that answer the question. Did God, by revelation in creation, tell you that man is an animal? Besides, the things about God that is revealed in creation is His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, such as are plain to us, and does not require one to be a scientist to see.
So, the scientist told you and that is where your belief that man is an animal is coming from.
It's difficult to deny when man and other species are so closely related in terms of biological structure, our uniqueness is actually minimal when the big picture is viewed from an objective standpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/)
: Alan Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 07:03:41
It's difficult to deny when man and other species are so closely related in terms of biological structure, our uniqueness is actually minimal when the big picture is viewed from an objective standpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/)
Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.
From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.
: 4WD Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 06:57:39
You really don't have a clue, do you?. Where is the sun and how far away is it? What has God told you about that? Apparently nothing. But He has revealed it to others who have paid attention and studied it. That you haven't doesn't change the truth.
You are confusing evolution with mathematics.
: AVZ Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 07:20:31
Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.
From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.
More of that really bad AVZ logic.
4WD, I hope that you did not intentionally skip answering these in my post at Reply #519.
Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
What do you say is the breath of life? Did God, to the animal, gave the breath of life?
Consider Eve.
Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:
"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
Does this verse even suggest of Eve as to have evolved from Adam or have been produced in man? That, the male human being produced the female human being or in the male human being, the female evolved or what?
: AVZ Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 07:42:07
You are confusing evolution with mathematics.
Au Contraire, it is you who are confusing theology with science.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
Humans have been humans since making our first step on this planet.
Earth was formed 4.543 billion years ago
The earth was covered entirely in ice 2.6 million years ago
(climate change debate is over)
The first human walked on this planet 200,000 years ago
So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.
It was not evolution that transformed us into what we are today, it was the
seed of life that visitors "planted" on this planet.
Just as we will do on another life supporting planet in our near future.
We are aliens on our own planet
The question remaining is when will they say hello? ::tippinghat::
::tinfoil::
test
Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.
In functional genes, probably a bit more than that. We have more genes in common with bacteria than genes by which we differ.
He're's the cool thing:
If you arrange all living things in a diagram according to how closely related they are in DNA, you will end up with almost exactly the same tree of life that Linnaeus made without knowing anything about DNA or evolution.
You have a bit more than half your DNA in common with plants. Why? because plants and humans are eukaryotes, and have a common ancestor after diverging from prokaryotes (like bacteria).
From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.
Watermelons are over 90% water by mass. Clouds are close to 100% water by mass. Watermelons are not nine-tenths of a cloud, however.
http://www.icr.org/article/10137
Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years.
Research led by Lund University in Sweden used FTIR to find original molecular bonds still intact inside fossilized leaf wax. The technique detects stretches in specific chemical bonds.
Then the team compared the waxy cuticle that somehow persists in leaf fossils with the same cuticle molecules found in their living counterparts. Many of the scan results showed a match, even after all the years those fossils remained underground. The team published their results in Nature: Ecology & Evolution.1
: Amo Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 20:11:24
http://www.icr.org/article/10137
You should read up on the discovery of soft tissue in fossils, the discovery of muscle material, blood vessels and even red blood cells.
Those were found in fossils that supposedly are millions of years old. It is impossible that this tissue material survived that long, and it is proof that the fossils are much younger than assumed, making the dating methods we use highly suspect.
You don't hear a lot about this because it's embarrassing to the evolution theory.
http://creationdino.blogspot.com/2015/09/evolution-theorys-biggest-blow-wilsons.html
Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 18, 2017 - 18:10:25
In functional genes, probably a bit more than that.
Watermelons are over 90% water by mass. Clouds are close to 100% water by mass. Watermelons are not nine-tenths of a cloud, however.
My statement about the banana was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but thank you for making it an issue.
You say that watermelons and clouds share a common treat, but that does not make them the same thing.
Can you claim that since watermelons and clouds have a common ancestor, water, they are therefore in same family?
In my book your statement would be a statement against evolution, humans and apes share a common treat...but that does not make them the same thing, or even related.
Besides that, the fact that life forms share DNA and are therefore related, has already been debunked scientifically. It just takes a lot of time for evolutionists to say it out loud.
Have a look at this famous DNA of yours, the claim that since humans and chimps share 98.5% of it...they must have a common ancestor.
1. Some time after DNA was discovered back in the 1950's, science found that of all that DNA we have only 2% was actual functional DNA.
And all the evolutionists jumped up and claimed: See all that useless DNA, these are leftovers from evolution and it is undeniable proof that evolution is true. They called it "junk DNA".
2. Science discovered that the second strand of DNA was doing absolutely nothing. Again proof of evolution
3. Then science discovered that it was not 98% of useless DNA...it was more like 95% useless DNA. And evolutionists claimed that maybe some more functional DNA was going to be found, but it was absolutely impossible it would be a whole lot more. Again it was undeniable proof of evolution.
4. More functional DNA was being discovered however and the 95% of useless DNA quickly turned into 50%. On top of that it was discovered that the second strand of DNA was in fact operational as well. Yet the term "junk DNA" was continuously being used as proof of evolution, undeniable.
5. Today it has been found that there most likely is no "junk DNA" at all. We just have not discovered the exact function of some segments. And the whole "junk DNA theory" that was absolute proof of evolution has fallen flat on it's face.
So there you are posting in your response "In functional genes, probably a bit more than that"
You have in fact no proof that there is such a thing as genes that have no function, and the common census is that these "useless" sections are either highly complex or a genetic defect.
Science has effectively disproven its own claim of evolution.
What has been discovered is also that the amount of DNA one shares, bears no relevance to what is actually produces or does!
The 1%-2% difference in DNA between humans and chimps can be crucial in the actual function of the other 98%.
There literally are trillions of ways amino acids can be formed, from different parts of the DNA strand, and the options are mind boggling.
Amino acids can be folded in numerous ways, making the coding not only 2 dimensional, but 3 and even 4 dimensional, every new fold creation a complete different result.
And then a whole lot of DNA is used for communication purpose. They direct other parts, which in turn can direct other parts.
Science has not even scratched the surface of it.
The claim that humans and chimps are related because they share common DNA is completely debunked by science.
You have as much chance that you are related to a chimp as a chimp has to be related to a walnut!
Back in the days the evolutionists were claiming that DNA was going to give them all the answers and evolution would be established fact.
DNA however has turned out to be exactly the opposite of what evolutionists were hoping for.
If there is one thing DNA has done, it is that it has proven the following:
- DNA cannot rewrite itself. The genetic code cannot produce a new code that produces another species.
- DNA must have originated from intelligence
- The chance that the different segments of the DNA strands came together by natural processes is abysmally small, it is trillions of times less likely than the evolutionary process itself.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Here is one from a Christian scientist that confirms that soft tissue can survive for millions of years.
http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say
Soft tissue has indeed been confirmed to have survived millions of years but if you try hard enough I'm sure you can find some "research" to the contrary rofl
: Alan Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 07:40:08
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Here is one from a Christian scientist that confirms that soft tissue can survive for millions of years.
http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say
Soft tissue has indeed been confirmed to have survived millions of years but if you try hard enough I'm sure you can find some "research" to the contrary rofl
Nothing has been confirmed to have survived millions of years, but in the minds of those who insist it is so, to support their own chosen views of how it all came about. A theory has been put forth as to how it could have happened, by someone who refuses to consider anything other than countless millions of years, that is all. Scientists are not God, what they speak is not the word of God, and they continually change their minds according to evidence or personal preference as can be easily deduced by anyone studying their findings and or claims throughout history.
No one knows how long the process described could actually preserve anything. Nor can it be demonstrated in any way shape or form short of being around the millions of years such would require, to demonstrate the same. Nor do the actions of a scientist with intelligence, exact purpose and intent unto a desired effect, and the controlled environment and process they themselves create for their experiment, ever represent random chance natural occurrences. It is again and always a simple case of one trying to prove what they have already chosen to believe, not unbiased scientific experimentation and observation of what real evidence suggests.
In the end it is all about faith. Who and or what is your faith in? God's word, or fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced observations.
: Amo Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 09:05:35In the end it is all about faith. Who and or what is your faith in? God's word, or fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced observations.
Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things? No. And therein lies the problem. It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means. And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means. And you can't prove otherwise.
So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.
I loved this from the BioLogos site;
"I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world."
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 09:24:40
Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things? No. And therein lies the problem. It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means. And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means. And you can't prove otherwise.
So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.
Test
It seems I cannot quote and reply to 4WD. Been trying for a few days now, just won't work. I'll try something else. I have a response to your last two responses to me 4WD, they just won't go through. Every time I try, i'm told the thread no longer exists or has been moved. If I just write the word test though, it goes through. Strange stuff.
: Amo Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 10:05:47It seems I cannot quote and reply to 4WD. Been trying for a few days now, just won't work. I'll try something else. I have a response to your last two responses to me 4WD, they just won't go through. Every time I try, i'm told the thread no longer exists or has been moved. If I just write the word test though, it goes through. Strange stuff.
It is probably a message from God telling you that 4WD is right and that that you should agree with him. ::smile:: ::clappingoverhead::
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 09:24:40
Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things? No. And therein lies the problem. It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means. And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means. And you can't prove otherwise.
So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.
Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith! Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least. We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.
You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.
Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 10:38:50
It is probably a message from God telling you that 4WD is right and that that you should agree with him. ::smile:: ::clappingoverhead::
If that was the way it worked, there would be an awful lot of silent people in the world.
: th1b.taylor Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 11:08:48
Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith! Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least. We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.
You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.
Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.
You think young earth creationism is a basic tenant of the faith? That is really, really sad. And that from one in constant conversation with God; all that much more so.
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 09:24:40
Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things? No. And therein lies the problem. It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means. And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means. And you can't prove otherwise.
So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.
What good would the word of God be 4WD, if anyone and everyone is able and allowed to make it say whatever they wish? Why would the bible itself speak so often about lies and deception, if in fact there really are no lies or deception, because there is no real standard of truth? If all are free and OK to make the word of God out to say whatever they wish, then there is no standard for any judgment, and all are saved regardless of what they believe or do.
If people such as yourself can completely deny the validity of large portions of scripture, or change their apparent meaning to whatever you wish, then the same freedom must be afforded everyone else. Unless of course you claim to be a prophet of God with new light. In which case of course, that new light should include a proper explanation of that from God's word which you say does not actually mean what it says. You and yours though, will not even do this. You just say it doesn't mean what it apparently says, and then leave it all wide open to speculation with nothing but the broad application of millions of years in place of rapid creation in days, and a complete denial of all things related to a global flood.
What you choose to believe demands that there is no standard of truth. Unless you yourself are that standard which all must submit to. Which is nothing less than to make yourself God. Which is exactly what all sin is. The desire to exalt one's self above God. God says one thing, the sinner says and does another. So how about it 4WD, are you God? Is the bible true and or the word of God? If yes, will you please explain to us what the bible's account of creation really means as you understand it, rather than just say it doesn't mean what it simply says?
Why should we and everyone else believe that when the bible says the world was created is six days, it doesn't really mean that? If it is all symbolic of something else, please explain the symbols. Can you do this, or do you just demand that it doesn't mean what it simply says? Do you believe Moses and the others who wrote it were inspired or not? If so, then what exactly was the divine message their inspiration was to impart? If not what they simply said, then what? What are some of the deceptions the bible refers to, that all should beware of? If the spirit of God is truly leading you, surely you can answer some of these important questions for us. Will you?
What parts of the bible actually mean what they simply say, and which parts do not?
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 12:20:24
You think young earth creationism is a basic tenant of the faith? That is really, really sad. And that from one in constant conversation with God; all that much more so.
Hmm. That is not what I said but you're talking as if you and... wait for it... just a little more... The Barbarian went to the same college because he also lacks in Reading Comprehension and tells people what he thinks they said as you just did. That is both rude and dumb. And Jesus us that except we become (believe) as a small child. The scriptures are very clear, so clear that Primaries have no problem, what-so-ever, understanding the Gospel, the Epistles or the Old Testament a.k.a. the Bible Jesus and the Disciples taught from.
Now, you drew me off course, so, the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, is essential to the Bible because all the rest of the Bible is built it for a foundation and if it is a lie, then the whole book falls. However the Bible stands and it protected by the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God of the Creation. In Duet 4:2 and at the end of Rev 22 we are warned of adding or subtracting from the Bible and truly I would be careful with the Word of God!
: Alan Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 09:33:19
I loved this from the BioLogos site;
"I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world."
Yes, we can welcome them. Especially when their findings lean heavily toward a young earth over an old earth, even though some will not allow for such.
: th1b.taylor Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 11:08:48
Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith! Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least. We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.
You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.
Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.
Ah yes, the HS, when you run out of facts to run your narrative you can always apply the HS as if you're much more anointed than others here. ::frown::
: Amo Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 16:41:05
Yes, we can welcome them. Especially when their findings lean heavily toward a young earth over an old earth, even though some will not allow for such.
In this case, her findings are not a young earth but that isn't why I loved the message, I loved it because it embraces the discoveries that science unfolds in the world around us, rather than claim that what we are observing, testing, and proving are lies, trickery, and confusion.
: Amo Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 14:33:21What good would the word of God be 4WD, if anyone and everyone is able and allowed to make it say whatever they wish?
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
Rev_20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, So Amo, is Satan really a serpent like it says there, a reptile such as a snake, a lizard, or maybe an alligator or a crocodile? What do you think? Is the reference to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be taken literal or symbolic? How about in Revelation 20? Same serpent? Literal or symbolic?
My statement about the banana was a tongue-in-cheek comment,
There are actually creationists who think it's an issue.
You say that watermelons and clouds share a common treat,
Trait? No, having water is not a trait.
Can you claim that since watermelons and clouds have a common ancestor, water,
They don't have a common ancestor. I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking all things are traits.
In my book your statement would be a statement against evolution, humans and apes share a common treat...
It's the homologies and genetic relationship that matter. And we know that they indicate common descent, since we can check that with organisms of known descent.
but that does not make them the same thing, or even related.
Genetic information does indeed indicate relationships. Would you like to learn how we know?
Besides that, the fact that life forms share DNA and are therefore related, has already been debunked scientifically.
Someone's misled you about that. The degree of genetic identity has been demonstated to show relatedness.
Have a look at this famous DNA of yours, the claim that since humans and chimps share 98.5% of it...they must have a common ancestor.
It's far more than mere genetic similarity. That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes. It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together. And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.
(http://www.newbeing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chromosomes.jpg)
That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.
1. Some time after DNA was discovered back in the 1950's, science found that of all that DNA we have only 2% was actual functional DNA.
By the time I was an undergraduate, in the 1960s, there were already articles showing that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") had other functions than protein synthesis.
And all the evolutionists jumped up and claimed: See all that useless DNA, these are leftovers from evolution and it is undeniable proof that evolution is true. They called it "junk DNA".
There is a lot of non-coding DNA that seems to have no function. The GULO gene in humans, for example, is the remains of a gene that makes vitamin C in other organisms. But since primates were fruit-eating, they got plenty of vitamin C from their diet, and there was no need for it. So a random mutation inactivated it early in primate evolution.
One researcher showed that huge amounts of non-coding DNA could be removed from a genome with no noticeable change in an organism:
Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.
More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. And yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html
These mice lost about 3% of their genome, with no effects. So yeah, a lot of it is junk. But a lot of it also has been adapted to other purposes.
2. Science discovered that the second strand of DNA was doing absolutely nothing. Again proof of evolution
I think you got that one garbled. It there were not two strands, replication would be impossible. It has to be that way.
5. Today it has been found that there most likely is no "junk DNA" at all.
GULO gene in primates. Does nothing whatever. Random removal of 3% of the non-coding DNA of mice had no discernable effect on them. So your assumption is wrong.
You have in fact no proof that there is such a thing as genes that have no function
See above. You've been misled on that.
What has been discovered is also that the amount of DNA one shares, bears no relevance to what is actually produces or does!
For example, the timing of gene expression. Humans mature much more slowly than other apes, and never fully mature compared to them. We look like immature apes. But the growth of our skulls continue longer, and the size our our teeth and jaws is relatively smaller. So a little difference can mean a lot.
And then a whole lot of DNA is used for communication purpose.
All coding DNA is like that. That's what "coding" means.
The claim that humans and chimps are related because they share common DNA is completely debunked by science.
See above. You've been misled. I've spent a lifetime learning about biology, and you really don't understand what this is about.
DNA cannot rewrite itself.
Happens all the time. You have dozens of changes in your genes that were not present in either parent.
The genetic code cannot produce a new code that produces another species.
Speciation is an observed fact. Even creationist organizations admit that it is.
DNA must have originated from intelligence
The universe originated from intelligence. However living things came about from that initial creation, as God tells us.
The chance that the different segments of the DNA strands came together by natural processes is abysmally small
God said it did. You should believe Him.
: th1b.taylor Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 16:08:39
Hmm. That is not what I said but you're talking as if you and... wait for it... just a little more... The Barbarian went to the same college because he also lacks in Reading Comprehension and tells people what he thinks they said as you just did. That is both rude and dumb. And Jesus us that except we become (believe) as a small child. The scriptures are very clear, so clear that Primaries have no problem, what-so-ever, understanding the Gospel, the Epistles or the Old Testament a.k.a. the Bible Jesus and the Disciples taught from.
Now, you drew me off course, so, the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, is essential to the Bible because all the rest of the Bible is built it for a foundation and if it is a lie, then the whole book falls. However the Bible stands and it protected by the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God of the Creation. In Duet 4:2 and at the end of Rev 22 we are warned of adding or subtracting from the Bible and truly I would be careful with the Word of God!
I agree with you that it would be wrong to add to or to subtract from the inspired words of God that God inspired men have written down that have since been collected and put into one book known as the Bible. Actually, it would be wrong to add or subtract to any entities words without their explicit consent. I assume that we both believe that every word of this Bible, as they were originally written down were truly inspired by God. Indeed, in 2 Timothy 3:16, in the original Greek, we find the word "θεόπνευστος".
"πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ" (Timothy 3:16)
A direct translation reads:
"Every scripture [is]
God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training, (τὴν) in righteousness..."
Interestingly, the King James translates this word that should mean "God-breathed" as "inspired. Well, I do love the KJV version of the Bible, but I must keep in mind that it is only a version and it is not the original words of God. It has been manipulated by men. And so we must therefore put forth our best diligence in order to understand as best we can the true message that God intended to convey to those men when He inspired them to write what they wrote. You see, we have already added to and subtracted from the Bible. And now we must do our best to try to restore it.
My point here is that we must distinguish the intent of God, not the intent of God according to the perceptions of men. And that my friend is not so easy. Indeed understanding God's intent requires God's intervention. Indeed, it is true what Paul wrote to Timothy,
"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear".
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..."
(Genesis 1:11)
"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"
(Genesis 1:12)
Did God leave something out? Do we know the full capabilities of the earth? I don't recall God telling us very much about how the earth brought forth life.
God tells that the earth brought forth every kind of plant. Indeed, every tree, and every plant and every animal has come from the earth. It seems to me that the earth, because it is God's creation is capable of doing whatever it is that God wants it to do. If God desires that the earth do something, God is fully capable of enabling the earth to do it.
What is it that the earth can do then? Well, if we want to know what the earth is capable of, it's a good idea to discover and learn what the earth has been doing. It makes proteins. It makes enzymes, it makes RNA, it makes DNA, and apparently as God has ordered it, the earth also brings forth life. And every single living being is the progeny of other living beings of the same kind.
God never tells us that all of the decedents of one kind of creature will remain the same kind of creature throughout all eternity. No, God tells us that the earth somehow brought forth grass and trees and every every other living organism, and that each organism that comes forth comes forth after its kind.
That in no way discredits evolution.
That being said, I've never seen evidence of evolution, although I hear there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea. But on what grounds would you deny the possibility that evolution is true, and on what grounds do you find evolution to be a contradiction to what God has told us.
: Alan Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 17:47:15
In this case, her findings are not a young earth but that isn't why I loved the message, I loved it because it embraces the discoveries that science unfolds in the world around us, rather than claim that what we are observing, testing, and proving are lies, trickery, and confusion.
Right back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed. You choose to believe instead that these soft tissues can and have lasted millions of years, though observable science highly suggests otherwise. My faith in God's word meaning what it simply says about creation will not allow me to indulge in such speculation against tremendous odds, while I maintain the belief that unless otherwise indicated, God's word means just what it says. This is all really about faith, not science. Is our faith in the word of God, or the word of fallen humanity.
Of course, you may not even believe in fallen humanity, do you? If we evolved, how and when did we fall. Another aspect of scripture your faith requires doesn't not simply mean what it says. would you be kind enough to answer this question for me please. How and when did humanity fall according to your theory of evolution? Thank you.
: 4WD Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 19:31:11
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
Rev_20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
So Amo, is Satan really a serpent like it says there, a reptile such as a snake, a lizard, or maybe an alligator or a crocodile? What do you think? Is the reference to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be taken literal or symbolic? How about in Revelation 20? Same serpent? Literal or symbolic?
No he isn't, and the bible itself makes this abundantly clear. Nor is he a dragon, or a roaring lion. He is a fallen angel named Lucifer. Do I need to supply the scriptures proving such, or are you knowledgable enough of the same to admit the obvious. We know that the serpent, dragon, and lion are just symbols representing different characteristics of Satan because this is how the scriptures themselves use these symbols. Please show us the same regarding six days of creation symbolizing countless millions of years of evolution. Thank you.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 20:13:03
There are actually creationists who think it's an issue.
Trait? No, having water is not a trait.
They don't have a common ancestor. I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking all things are traits.
It's the homologies and genetic relationship that matter. And we know that they indicate common descent, since we can check that with organisms of known descent.
Genetic information does indeed indicate relationships. Would you like to learn how we know?
Someone's misled you about that. The degree of genetic identity has been demonstated to show relatedness.
It's far more than mere genetic similarity. That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes. It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together. And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.
(http://www.newbeing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chromosomes.jpg)
That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.
By the time I was an undergraduate, in the 1960s, there were already articles showing that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") had other functions than protein synthesis.
There is a lot of non-coding DNA that seems to have no function. The GULO gene in humans, for example, is the remains of a gene that makes vitamin C in other organisms. But since primates were fruit-eating, they got plenty of vitamin C from their diet, and there was no need for it. So a random mutation inactivated it early in primate evolution.
One researcher showed that huge amounts of non-coding DNA could be removed from a genome with no noticeable change in an organism:
Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.
More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. And yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html
These mice lost about 3% of their genome, with no effects. So yeah, a lot of it is junk. But a lot of it also has been adapted to other purposes.
I think you got that one garbled. It there were not two strands, replication would be impossible. It has to be that way.
GULO gene in primates. Does nothing whatever. Random removal of 3% of the non-coding DNA of mice had no discernable effect on them. So your assumption is wrong.
See above. You've been misled on that.
For example, the timing of gene expression. Humans mature much more slowly than other apes, and never fully mature compared to them. We look like immature apes. But the growth of our skulls continue longer, and the size our our teeth and jaws is relatively smaller. So a little difference can mean a lot.
All coding DNA is like that. That's what "coding" means.
See above. You've been misled. I've spent a lifetime learning about biology, and you really don't understand what this is about.
Happens all the time. You have dozens of changes in your genes that were not present in either parent.
Speciation is an observed fact. Even creationist organizations admit that it is.
The universe originated from intelligence. However living things came about from that initial creation, as God tells us.
God said it did. You should believe Him.
Back to the issue of faith over and over and over again. Similarities prove absolutely nothing. They can just as easily be the result of similarity in design in rapid creation, as they can be the result of similarity in design due to evolution. The only difference is regarding what or who one chooses to believe. Humanity will either choose faith in God's word, or faith in their own words and understanding. That is all. That choice reveals who our God really is.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 20:13:03
It's far more than mere genetic similarity. That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes. It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together. And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.
(http://www.newbeing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chromosomes.jpg)
That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.
I don't take that as stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.
Though, I can take that as a stunning confirmation that we all came from the same lump of clay. And also as a stunning confirmation that we were all created by one Creator and a Creator with extremely unimaginable creativity and of infinite amount and of the highest degree of intelligence.
: Amo Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 09:34:59
Right back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed. You choose to believe instead that these soft tissues can and have lasted millions of years, though observable science highly suggests otherwise.
The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.
: 4WD Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 12:21:52
Barbarian said....
Matter formed and some of it condensed into stars and galaxies. Some stars were so large that they burned out quickly, and exploded. The shockwave collapsed clouds of gas and formed new stars, one of which was our sun. And from that collapse, the world formed.
Michael said....
So, after many many things, which you apparently have said nothing about yet, went on of light, matter was formed, some condensing into stars and galaxies, and there was some explosions of stars, and so the story goes, until the sun was formed and so too is the world formed. Again, some story you have there.
Yes it is. The magnitude of it and the glory to God of it all is overwhelming to any who would bother to consider just how much evidence there is to support it.
So, you believe the story, the story of the wise ~ the wisdom of this world.
And this is even while scriptures does not even give the slightest hint of creation by evolution. The concept of evolution is nowhere found in scriptures.
Evolutionary thought has roots in antiquity - in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science.
At the time of the apostles, here's what Paul said of the wisdom of the world and of Greeks, who at that time were considered the wise of the times.
1 Corinthians 1:19-21
19 For it is written:"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since,
in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For
the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 20 and again, "
The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
Right back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed.
Your faith in fallen humanity's reinterpretation of scripture will not allow you to consider the evidence showing that biological molecules (not soft tissue; so far, no one has been able to show intact cells that old, much less tissue) can survive for millions of years under the right conditions. Chemists are quite aware of this, showing that under ideal conditions, certain biological molecules have breakdown rate in millions of years.
You choose to believe instead that these soft tissues
Organic molecules. Tissues are groups of cells organized for a particular function. No one has demonstrated those in dino remains.
I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science. It's your choice. But it obviously isn't God's word, and that is what counts.
If we evolved, how and when did we fall.
According to God, the first two people disobeyed Him. Another aspect of scripture your faith requires doesn't not simply mean what it says. Instead, you want to set aside Christian faith and revise it to be a literal history. It just doesn't work.
would you be kind enough to answer this question for me please. How and when did humanity fall according to your theory of evolution?
Evolutionary theory isn't about God or our relationship with Him. So you'll have to set YE creationism aside and just take Genesis as it is. Or you can accept the modern revison of YE creationism. Your choice. And it won't cause you to risk your salvation, unless you raise your new doctrine to the point that you insist it's a necessary doctrine for salvation.
: Alan Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14
The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.
One can posit that soft tissue can surivive for millions of years. One can have tons of evidence and show it likely to be true. It cannot be considered fact. It simply cannot be proven.
One can posit that soft tissue can surivive for millions of years. One can have tons of evidence and show it likely to be true. It cannot be considered fact. It simply cannot be proven.
Science never "proves" anything. Science is primarily inductive, which means we never get the rules by which we can deduce the particulars like how many millions of years some organic molecules can exist. We can only look at the particulars and infer the rules from that. So any scientific understanding is simply the result of gathering sufficient evidence to make it foolish to deny what is found.
In this case, data from chemistry, paleontology, physics and other sciences make it pointless to deny that organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in certain conditions. It's just too wildly improbable, given the facts.
: Alan Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14
The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.
It is not observed and it is most definitely not a fact.
I have read the links you posted and they are nothing more but assumptions that perhaps a preservation method that supports a millions-years preservation will be discovered.
Reality is that tissue disintegrates over time. Even if the tissue would be kept in a preservative fluid, the fluid itself will deteriorate, after which the tissue follows. Besides that the tissue would contain traces of the preservative it was in.
Even if the tissue would have been hermetically packed in plastic, plastic itself disintegrates within a 1000 years or so, after which the tissue would follow.
There is no biological or chemical explanation for tissue to survive for millions of years even in the most preservative environment.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 14:24:44
I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science.
That's a remarkable statement. Over the last hundreds of years much evidence has been and had to be re-interpreted.
If indeed any such interpretation or re-interpretation is fallible, then the same goes for the evolution theory.
Barbarian observes:
I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science.
That's a remarkable statement.
And an accurate one.
Over the last hundreds of years much evidence has been and had to be re-interpreted.
Science has known that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years on the right environment. So it's no surprise that we can sometimes find traces of heme or collagen in ancient fossils. As you learned, there has been no recovery of cells, much less tissues in fossils.
If indeed any such interpretation or re-interpretation is fallible
Obviously, the reinterpretation of Genesis by YE creationists, cannot be true, since much of it is directly contrary to Genesis.
then the same goes for the evolution theory.
Evolutionary theory has been expanded and corrected over the years. For example, Mendel's discovery of Genetics led to major changes in evolutionary theory. That's how science works. However, major revisions to God's word, like YE creationism, is not the way faith works.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 21:53:21
As you learned, there has been no recovery of cells, much less tissues in fossils.
I am not sure where you have been for the last few years:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved.Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls "round microstructures" in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.A careful observer immediately notices that the article spends much time to ridicule the support claimed by YE creationists. The reference to creationism is totally irrelevant to the story, the scientific data and observation would have been exactly the same if no reference was made to creationism.
But there is of course a reason for this because this finding does not support the age of the fossil...it does support YE creationism.
So what we have here is soft tissue and red blood cells, which according to science could not have been preserved for 68 million years.
Yet it was found is a fossil bed that according to science is 68 million years old.
Lets see what science is prepared to say about the find of blood cells (this is really ridiculous).
https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/8751897/dinosaur-cells-tissue-bones-75-million-years-old
Bertazzo says; contamination from other animals can't be ruled out. "Even if it is quite unlikely that someone or some bird cut themselves and bled on the fossil at any point in time and right on the spot we took the smaller bit off, this is always a possibility."See, since science says that dinosaurs evolved from birds, it obviously must have been a bird that cut itself on a dinosaur bone.
Totally preposterous.
And if things aren't bad enough, the discovery of soft tissue has not stopped. Seems like they even found soft tissue in a 195 million year old fossil.
So we have these impossible things happening and science is scrambling to come up with an explanation (such as a bird cutting itself on a bone).
The only thing science refuses to do it ask the question: Maybe the fossil is not as old as we think it is..because whatever you dare to say as a scientist, never ever say anything that may possibly shed doubt on the theory of evolution.
I am not sure where you have been for the last few years:
Debunking myths about "tissue."
Schweitzer never claimed to have found tissue. Here's a write-up from
Science, a scientific journal:
Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in 'milestone' paper
By Robert F. ServiceJan. 31, 2017 , 11:00 AM
It's not quite Jurassic Park: No one has revived long-extinct dinosaurs. But two new studies suggest that it is possible to isolate
protein fragments from dinosaurs much further back in time than ever thought possible. One study, led by Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University in Raleigh who has chased dinosaur proteins for decades, confirms her highly controversial claim to have recovered 80-million-year-old
dinosaur collagen. The other paper suggests that protein may even have survived in a 195-million-year-old dino fossil.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper
(bolding is mine)
As you see, no tissue. Not even intact cells. But some fragments of molecules did survive. Heme has been found as well as collagen.
The cool part was when the heme was tested, it was (as predicted by evolutionary theory) closest to that of birds, rather than to modern reptiles.
So what we have here are fragments of organic molecules. And it's a surprise since it had previously only been known from amber and marine invertebrates that old.
Bertazzo says; contamination from other animals can't be ruled out. "Even if it is quite unlikely that someone or some bird cut themselves and bled on the fossil at any point in time and right on the spot we took the smaller bit off, this is always a possibility."
Here, he's being very careful about the finding that confirms birds and dinosaurs are closely related. Since the heme turned out to be very much like that of modern birds, but not so much like modern reptiles, it's powerful confirmation of evolutionary theory. And extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary care to clear.
So as you see, no tissue was found. Schweitzer never claimed to have found tissue. It's fragments of organic molecules. Heme is a fragment of hemoglobin, BTW. The discovery that the recovered was most like that of birds, is yet another confirmation of evolutionary theory.
Edit; Perhaps you don't know what "tissue" means. I think I provided you with a definition, but "tissue" is a group of cells organized to one or more functions. So far, no one has even found intact cells, much less entire tissues, in ancient fossils.
Contrary to what you've been told, there's nothing in science that says that would be impossible. But it seems to be so unlikely that it's probably never going to be found.
: AVZ Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 23:54:02
.... whatever you dare to say as a scientist, never ever say anything that may possibly shed doubt on the theory of evolution.
Why do you suppose that? Wouldn't
any scientist love to be the first to break new ground? That is a scientist's primary quest, to make new discoveries rather than spend a lifetime confirming what others have already found. This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.
: Alan Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 09:54:29
Why do you suppose that? Wouldn't any scientist love to be the first to break new ground? That is a scientist's primary quest, to make new discoveries rather than spend a lifetime confirming what others have already found. This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.
My quest for the proof of age of skillions and skillions of years will not happen either.
: Alan Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 09:54:29
....This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.
Why such a quest?
There is agreement among Christians that God created man.
But then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes. And this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality. So real, as to him, it is the truth. He goes on to convincing the world, even the Christian, saying, if there should be a Creator God, then He created man by the process of evolution. So, you see, evolution is not in conflict with what your God says.
What must the Christian do?
The Christian of course must begin with God. He believes that truth, and all truth is what God says. With that, he must turn to God, see what God, in His words in scriptures, if any concerning this matter, tells him. In the book where God speaks of His creation of man, we have:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
The truth that the Christian gets from God concerning the creation of man is this, and the scientist may observe:
1. Man was formed by God of the dust of the ground.
2. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
3. God created man in His own image.
4. Woman was formed by God from out of the man's rib.
On the matter of what the scientist say, that man is an animal, as he so concludes that man is an ape, would the Christian find this as true? Let's consider what God said of the animals:
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its 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 birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
We see that God created other life forms which called living creatures, and the scientist called animals. Now, the first of the living creatures God created were those of the water and the winged creatures. Then He commanded the earth to bring forth other living creatures. And so, they are of the earth. Now among these living creatures, the animals, there is not the human. It was only when God created Adam that the human came to being. And to emphasize that the human is different from the other living creatures that God have created, God said that man is in His image and likeness. So, except that man was likewise of the earth like the other living creatures He created, man is a totally different creature. He is not an animal or an ape at that. The man and ape may be 95% genetically similar in their physical make up, but that does not mean that man necessarily have descended from apes.
Animals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man. Or man may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as animals, but we are not animals. Besides, even with regards the flesh of man and animals, even while scientists point to the almost like genetic make up of man and the ape, here's what scriptures have to say:
1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
Did God create a lifeless thing in the beginning, such as light, that will in time randomly evolve into all sorts of things and later evolved into different random wild lifeforms? And so the Christian scientist says, God did, based on scientific observations. And then among the lifeforms that have evolved, God have chosen from among the animals, the ape to further evolve the animal creature into what man is today, and make him to be in his likeness and image. Can the Christian scientist tell when God have completed the evolution of the ape into the first humans, so that then was when God have made what He says is in His image and likeness? Now, one is quick to point out that such likeness is not physical. Then it should be spiritual, or something to do with something else but the physical. Knowing the time, when in the evolution timeline of the scientist, did the ape evolved to be man, is relevant and important for the Christian to consider, as this will give him some idea as to the behavior of what may be to him is Adam of the Bible, him whom God made to have dominion over the other living creatures and take care of the garden of Eden.
Now, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it. Can scientists bring us ahead to the future? Where will evolution take man? Does evolution have an end? When will it end? Will it ever end?
I think we ought to know our boundaries regarding the matter of how God created and made things. It is something God have not intended for us to know. Why not? The obvious is, it will do us more harm than good.
: Alan Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14
The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.
It absolutely is not observed. It cannot be observed short of being around millions of years to confirm such. All theories regarding such can only remain exactly that short of the above. Tissue decay on the other hand absolutely is observable and has been observed. All of which strongly suggest it is highly unlikely that tissues could still be around millions, even hundreds of millions of years according to known observable rates of decay.
It is not and cannot be observed, and it is only considered a fact by those who strongly wish it to be so. If in fact any wish it to be considered more than theory, then at the very least they need to try to reproduce the decaying effect of hundreds of millions of years upon tissues, and then show that they actually survived after dong so. Even this would still leave such more in the realm of theory though than observable fact, having all been done in a controlled environment with exact purpose and intent. Far to many scientists today are ready and willing to pass off their theories as established observable fact when they most certainly are not. It is just another sign of the times.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
: Texas Conservative Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 10:06:49
My quest for the proof of age of skillions and skillions of years will not happen either.
Ah yes, you can disregard the research and data that has been gathered over the years and deem it insufficient but at the same time have nothing to replace those rejected theories with. It would seem logical that man must believe in something and give some reasoning to his belief. If a man says to me that "I don't believe in evolution or an old earth because that just isn't the way that I believe God set things in motion." I would respect that 100%, there is much about God and His creation that we cannot explain, but attempts to debunk scientific evidence with pseudo science is ludicrous beyond reason.
IOW, you are entitled to reject science but the only alternative to science would be faith that God did it His way, there is no
reasonable alternative to scientific theories.
: Michael2012 Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 10:16:37
Why such a quest?
Surely if the earth is indeed 6000 years old at least some scientists should be supporting the concept with research and evidence, other than those that have a religious agenda.
: Alan Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 17:00:02
Surely if the earth is indeed 6000 years old at least some scientists should be supporting the concept with research and evidence, other than those that have a religious agenda.
And there you have it again, the complete illogical demand that this kind of research and evidence is welcome, as long as the scientist is not a Christian.
It is the typical ad-hominem reception so many Christian scientists receive from their peers: You are a Christian so we don't accept your research.
: Alan Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 16:57:49
Ah yes, you can disregard the research and data that has been gathered over the years and deem it insufficient but at the same time have nothing to replace those rejected theories with. It would seem logical that man must believe in something and give some reasoning to his belief. If a man says to me that "I don't believe in evolution or an old earth because that just isn't the way that I believe God set things in motion." I would respect that 100%, there is much about God and His creation that we cannot explain, but attempts to debunk scientific evidence with pseudo science is ludicrous beyond reason.
IOW, you are entitled to reject science but the only alternative to science would be faith that God did it His way, there is no reasonable alternative to scientific theories.
Who disregarded or rejected science? I am putting it in a proper context. I have not even brought any "pseudo science" into the discussion. But when words like "facts" and "proven" are used incorrectly, I will interject. No one can prove 6000 years, and no one can prove billions. And even with science, one must believe, even those who understand and are doing the research must make assumptions to continue research. In 100 years, most of what Barbarian and others are calling "fact" and "proven" may well look infantile.
There is agreement among Christians that God created man.
And among many non-Christians. When I was doing post-graduate work in biology, there were Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scientists who recognize that God created man.
But then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes.
Yes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be. But we can learn about His creation by observing it.
And this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality.
Directly observed. Hard to deny that.
So, you see, evolution is not in conflict with what your God says.
How could it be? Nature is His creation, and it works as He intended.
What must the Christian do?
Accept the truth. You should never be afraid of the truth. God is truth.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
Because Jesus tells us that God is a spirit, with no body, the "image" cannot be a physical one. God doesn't have knees and a nose. The image is in his spirit.
Animals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man.
Because animals are merely their bodies. We are souls who have a body. Hence, we were created as the other animals were, but then God directly gives us a soul. As He says, before we were formed in the womb, He knew us.
Now, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it.
If your argument is that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe, then you're wrong. Forensic, fire investigation, astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences show that we can indeed learn about these things.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 19:00:58
Yes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be. But we can learn about His creation by observing it.
Issue #1
God DID tell us the details of the creation of both man's body and man's spirit. You have just chosen not to take these details on face value.
In your opinion it is evolution that provides you the undeniable proof that the accounts in Genesis cannot be understood in a literal setting.
Issue #2
The fact is that you are not observing creation, you are observing natural processes which are the result of creation.
You call that evolution, but the whole point of the evolution theory is that it is unguided. It is a process that came about by chance and is subject to random processes.
And there is the big misalignment with theistic evolution, because the inference of a creator by definition excludes the possibility of an unguided process.
You cannot subscribe to evolution as an unguided process by chance, and make the claim God interfered with it by for example giving man a spirit that classifies him as a different species.
The moment God interferes in the process, it becomes guided.
So what are you? Are you an evolutionist, or are you a creationist?
And if you are an "in-betweener", then can you share with me how many times you think God interfered with the evolution process?
Finally, when God created the universe, did God have a plan in mind? Was there a goal and a purpose for creation?
And if there was a goal and purpose, how did God reach that goal and purpose if what you say He chose to do is leave it up to chance?
: AVZ Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 18:38:06
And there you have it again, the complete illogical demand that this kind of research and evidence is welcome, as long as the scientist is not a Christian.
It is the typical ad-hominem reception so many Christian scientists receive from their peers: You are a Christian so we don't accept your research.
It's perfectly logical. A tiny percentage of scientists are YE christians. Of all scientists today NONE of them are insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, unless of course they are stretching the truth to fit their religion.
: Texas Conservative Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 18:57:08
Who disregarded or rejected science? I am putting it in a proper context. I have not even brought any "pseudo science" into the discussion. But when words like "facts" and "proven" are used incorrectly, I will interject. No one can prove 6000 years, and no one can prove billions. And even with science, one must believe, even those who understand and are doing the research must make assumptions to continue research. In 100 years, most of what Barbarian and others are calling "fact" and "proven" may well look infantile.
By saying that you won't find proof for skillions and skillions of years sounds like you don't agree, or IOW "reject" scientific claims, but anyway, I wasn't necessarily directing the "pseudo science" statement toward you, I was just expounding on the initial point. I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on this topic and respect you for that.
: Alan Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 21:52:06
It's perfectly logical. A tiny percentage of scientists are YE christians. Of all scientists today NONE of them are insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, unless of course they are stretching the truth to fit their religion.
Whether a scientist is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnost or Atheist has nothing to do with science. Scientific data should be able to uphold itself.
Every scientist in search of a method starts with a premise and whether you like it or not, that premise always originates from an assumption.
The basis of this assumption is totally irrelevant as far as science is concerned.
You are the posterboy for the present scientific census. The consideration is that since a scientist is a YE creationist, he therefore stretches the truth to fit his convictions.
The YE creationist just by posing a perfectly valid premise is being demonized because of his believes.
On the other hand people like Hawkins are welcomed with open arms if they do exactly the same.
There is an enormous bias in the scientific community today that simply has the goal to exclude religion, and particular Christians, from the scene.
The reality however is that where stretching the truth is concerned, the examples of such are not found in the camp of creationists...on the contrary.
Over and over again are we confronted with evolutionist data that turns out to be exaggerated or bluntly falsified.
Ever heard of Haekel's Embryo's? Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Beringer Frauds, Archaeoraptor just to name a few.
In short, the evolutionist scene today is driven by interior motives as much as those on the creationist scene. Unfortunately those who hold the majority can decide which theories and observations are allowed to be published and which are not.
To speak with the words of Richard Lewontin:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Michael:
But then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes.
Barbarian:
Yes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be. But we can learn about His creation by observing it.
How, by observing creation have you come to know how God made man from the dust of the earth? Have you really actually observe how light evolved into matter, and matter evolving into many many things, and into many many lifeforms, and into the ape, and into man? And I doubt if you can observe what will man evolve into. All were just theories man made, not really of wanting to know how God made things, but of various other reasons I don't know. I think one concerns the ego.
Michael:
And this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality.
Barbarian:
Directly observed. Hard to deny that.
Perhaps for those directly observable. But not what scientist say of the evolution of man, evolution of light into matter, and into the universe, and into lifeforms. These can just not directly be observed.
Michael:
What must the Christian do?
Barbarian:
Accept the truth. You should never be afraid of the truth. God is truth.
Yes, if truth it is. But, since it's not coming from Scriptures but coming from man, I have posted what I think the Christian should do concerning the teachings of man that somehow relates to God. The Christian of course must begin with God. He believes that truth, and all truth is what God says. With that, he must turn to God, see what God, in His words in scriptures, if any concerning this matter, tells him. And I have shown what God said about the man and the animal in Genesis. (see reply #576).
Michael:
Animals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man.
Barbarian:
Because animals are merely their bodies. We are souls who have a body. Hence, we were created as the other animals were, but then God directly gives us a soul. As He says, before we were formed in the womb, He knew us.
So what are you saying of man? That he is a soul with an animal (ape-like) body? Tell me, what is the soul that God have given, if in fact it was given? And to whom did God gave the soul? To the man or to the animal with the ape-like body? This brings us to Gen. 2:7.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
What God have formed of the dust, before God made him a living being/soul, is man, not animal, not an ape at that. Now what do you say is the "breath of life" did God gave what he formed of the dust that he became a living being/soul?
Michael:
Now, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it.
Barbarian:
If your argument is that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe, then you're wrong. Forensic, fire investigation, astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences show that we can indeed learn about these things.
We can learn, that's right. But even in wikipedia we have this said:
A scientific theory is empirical[p][86] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[r] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[87]:4Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1][2]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]There is simply no way for the scientist to test its theory on the evolution of the universe and man, even from an initial creation of light. And what can't be tested can't just be part of science, if I may say so.
The dictionary defines science as follows:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/
Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.
So, science is basically observation of nature. Without observation, that science won't be science any more. What can't be observed is out of science's territory, if I may say then.
: AVZ Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 23:51:18
Whether a scientist is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnost or Atheist has nothing to do with science. Scientific data should be able to uphold itself.
Every scientist in search of a method starts with a premise and whether you like it or not, that premise always originates from an assumption.
The basis of this assumption is totally irrelevant as far as science is concerned.
You are the posterboy for the present scientific census. The consideration is that since a scientist is a YE creationist, he therefore stretches the truth to fit his convictions.
The YE creationist just by posing a perfectly valid premise is being demonized because of his believes.
On the other hand people like Hawkins are welcomed with open arms if they do exactly the same.
There is an enormous bias in the scientific community today that simply has the goal to exclude religion, and particular Christians, from the scene.
The reality however is that where stretching the truth is concerned, the examples of such are not found in the camp of creationists...on the contrary.
Over and over again are we confronted with evolutionist data that turns out to be exaggerated or bluntly falsified.
Ever heard of Haekel's Embryo's? Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Beringer Frauds, Archaeoraptor just to name a few.
In short, the evolutionist scene today is driven by interior motives as much as those on the creationist scene. Unfortunately those who hold the majority can decide which theories and observations are allowed to be published and which are not.
To speak with the words of Richard Lewontin:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Your logic continues to be faulty, you make it seem as though all scientists have an anti-christian agenda to fill when the truth of the matter is they're simply observing and collecting data, the origins of which is unknown. The majority of scientists are working toward "discovery" rather than confirmation, religion has little meaning behind their work.
: Alan Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 04:30:11
Your logic continues to be faulty, you make it seem as though all scientists have an anti-christian agenda to fill when the truth of the matter is they're simply observing and collecting data, the origins of which is unknown. The majority of scientists are working toward "discovery" rather than confirmation, religion has little meaning behind their work.
If that is indeed the case, then why do you insist that the only evidence you are willing to accept must come from someone with no religious affiliations.
And I just wonder why that is, are you afraid the creationists will deceive you? And what makes you think you are not being deceived by the evolutionists?
I don't think at all that all scientists have an anti-Christian agenda, but what I do know is that the scientific census makes it almost impossible for a Christian scientist to be heard.
The reason for this you displayed yourself by demanding that evidence is OK, as long as it is not provided by someone why professes the Bible.
If you are still in doubt, I request you to carefully look at the quote from Richard Lewontin again and realize that this is the common line of thought in the scientific community.
Of course this status will remain as long as there are people like you who dismiss scientific evidence based on bias rather than merit.
: AVZ Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 05:50:07
If that is indeed the case, then why do you insist that the only evidence you are willing to accept must come from someone with no religious affiliations.
Why do you insist that anyone, including Christians, who does not believe as you do on this subject has no religious affiliations?
: Alan Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 04:30:11 religion has little meaning behind their work.
Greetings Alan~would you please explain this statement. I've been out of the loop, so it not easy to jump right back in without going over the many posts which I may, or may not do. Time is so precious to me at the moment. I have to pick my battles wisely, and this one is not at the top of my list, other than seeing what other professors believe or do not believe regarding creation based upon the scriptures, which is our ONLY true source of truth. As you know, I care little about science so-called.
Thank you for your time and answer in advance.
The Scriptures are indeed our source of truth, particularly about God. But the Scriptures are not our only source of truth. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is PI [π]. That is an absolute truth, but you will not find that anywhere in Scripture.
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 07:47:21
Why do you insist that anyone, including Christians, who does not believe as you do on this subject has no religious affiliations?
Please substantiate your claim and show where I did make such a statement.
: AVZ Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:27:33
Please substantiate your claim and show where I did make such a statement.
Is it not true?
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:08:38
The Scriptures are indeed our source of truth, particularly about God. But the Scriptures are not our only source of truth. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is PI [π]. That is an absolute truth, but you will not find that anywhere in Scripture.
Seems to me that the Bible claims that creation was a guided process, not a matter of chance.
Evolution, as we are discussing it here, is an unguided process based on chance.
So we have two contradicting views here: guided/unguided & purpose/chance
They cannot both be truth.
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:31:31
Is it not true?
Pertinently not true.
Issue #1
God DID tell us the details of the creation of both man's body and man's spirit.
No. We have a brief parable that says man's body came from nature, but his soul came directly from God. That's it.
In your opinion it is evolution that provides you the undeniable proof that the accounts in Genesis cannot be understood in a literal setting.
No. As you learned, Christians knew that Genesis could not be a literal history, long before evolutionary theory.
Issue #2
The fact is that you are not observing creation, you are observing natural processes which are the result of creation.
You're wrong about that, too. Undergraduates observe it in labs every year. The evolution of new species has been directly observed. No point in denying it.
You call that evolution, but the whole point of the evolution theory is that it is unguided.
Nope. Go to Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory. Show me wherein there's a claim that it's unguided. You won't find it in any of the subsequent revisions of the theory, either. Some people think it's unguided. Others disagree.
It is a process that came about by chance
If you think creation came about by chance, we've found your problem. God created nature to serve His purposes. No chance there.
and is subject to random processes.
So are all things in this world:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.
And there is the big misalignment with theistic evolution, because the inference of a creator by definition excludes the possibility of an unguided process.
You're assuming that God isn't powerful enough to use unguided processes. And yet, in the Bible, He says that He does.
"The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. "
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica 22 The Providence of God
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm
God's a lot more capable than you seem to think He is.
You cannot subscribe to evolution as an unguided process by chance,
Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.
and make the claim God interfered with it by for example giving man a spirit that classifies him as a different species.
You can, if you acknowledge that God is capable of miracles.
So what are you? Are you an evolutionist, or are you a creationist?
I'm a Christian who realizes that God uses evolution to produce the variety of life we see today.
And if you are an "in-betweener",
That would be a YE creationist, willing to accept some of Genesis, but not all of it.
then can you share with me how many times you think God interfered with the evolution process?
Don't know that He ever did. Giving us an immortal soul has no effect on evolution whatsoever.
Finally, when God created the universe, did God have a plan in mind?
Not in the strict sense of the word. "Purpose" is a better word, since "plan" implies figuring out things. And God has no need of that.
Was there a goal and a purpose for creation?
He wanted to share Heaven with us.
And if there was a goal and purpose, how did God reach that goal and purpose if what you say He chose to do is leave it up to chance?
See above. You're just assuming God isn't capable of using contingency for His purposes.
: AVZ Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:33:36
Pertinently not true.
That is at least good to know.
: AVZ Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:32:56
Seems to me that the Bible claims that creation was a guided process, not a matter of chance.
Evolution, as we are discussing it here, is an unguided process based on chance.
So we have two contradicting views here: guided/unguided & purpose/chance
They cannot both be truth.
Both can be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.
Both and be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.
And who among us will go and tell Him that He cannot?
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:52:48
And who among us will go and tell Him that He cannot?
Certainly not me ! ! I will leave that up to the YECs
To Barbarian and others who concludes, on the basis of scientific findings, that God created by evolution, including Adam.
That it started from an initial creation. And many many things with this initial creation, that Christian scientist believe to be light, randomly happened, until there evolved the universe, the heavens and the earth. Then, God caused the earth to bring forth all living things, starting with the evolution of the first simple living organism.......
The Christian believe that God intended and purposely created man from the beginning of creation. And so......
Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism. If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case. And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in scriptures? The Christian, based on scriptures, counts it to only some 6,000+ years ago, or as some calculates to be up to 12,000 years ago, but nowhere by the hundred thousands of years ago. So, even while man has already evolved several million years ago, God apparently has not reached His intended creation. So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God? Let's see. Since God said in scriptures that we have come from the kind of Adam, Adam must be of the same species then of the modern human. And so, we can say that the human species God intended to create Adam from is of the Homo Sapien as science so named and say the modern man is a species of.
Now, it is said that according to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Further, it is said that, more recently, in 2017, fossils found in Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) suggest that Homo sapiens may have evolved as early as 300,000 years ago,[8] and other evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago.[9][10] Does it mean then that Adam was created by God some 100,000 to 300,000 years ago? (Such range as to when the Homo Sapien evolved speaks of the accuracy or inaccuracy of scientific dating of the fossil evidence.) Taking even that the Homo Sapien evolved some 100,000 years ago, the closest figure to that counted by the Christian based on scriptures, the following problems/questions arises:
1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?
If man continue to evolve as scientist say:
2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?
3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?
4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?
5. When will the evolution of man end?
6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?
7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?
8. How do yo interpret Adam and the garden of Eden?
...... and so on.
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:51:20
Both can be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.
That is an unintelligible statement.
The whole point about a guided process is that it is not left to chance. That's why we call it guided in the first place.
If the process is a guided process, than the elements of that process cannot be uncertain.
Again I want to post the example: If you want to go to the supermarket, you don't take a taxi and leave it up to chance you will arrive at the supermarket.
It's downright contradictory to propose the existence of a guided unguided process.
Do you think that light from the sun reaching the earth is a process guided by God? If not, that is indeed strange given your view of things. If so, then you must permit the chance movement of photons from the interior of the sun to the surface of the sun as part of the guided process. But then perhaps you don't believe anything about chance, probability, statistics or any of that "science" stuff.
: RB Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 07:59:06
Greetings Alan~would you please explain this statement. I've been out of the loop, so it not easy to jump right back in without going over the many posts which I may, or may not do. Time is so precious to me at the moment. I have to pick my battles wisely, and this one is not at the top of my list, other than seeing what other professors believe or do not believe regarding creation based upon the scriptures, which is our ONLY true source of truth. As you know, I care little about science so-called.
Thank you for your time and answer in advance.
That is part of a statement regarding scientists work, the goal is discovery, break troughs, and giving new meaning to the mysteries that surround creation. If you don't give credence to science, then I expect your faith in scripture to be sufficient evidence for ALL creation.
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 10:24:53
Do you think that light from the sun reaching the earth is a process guided by God? If not, that is indeed strange given your view of things. If so, then you must permit the chance movement of photons from the interior of the sun to the surface of the sun as part of the guided process. But then perhaps you don't believe anything about chance, probability, statistics or any of that "science" stuff.
That's a good example, to the YE creationist the sun is simply a big ball of burning hydrogen that is very stable and consistent by nature, rather than the chaotic, earth altering body it truly is.
Evolution is not fact or fiction. It is a scientific theory.
: Alan Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 10:38:50
That's a good example, to the YE creationist the sun is simply a big ball of burning hydrogen that is very stable and consistent by nature, rather than the chaotic, earth altering body it truly is.
Both you and 4WD should really spend a bit more time thinking through your objections.
The sun does not burn hydrogen by chance, it burns following natural patterns. If the sun would burn by chance, then tomorrow it could stop burning?
Neither do the photons move around erratically, they too follow a process in which their movement and behavior is predictive.
The radiation emitted by the sun reaches into the universe according to a pattern that can be measured and predicted. The speed by which it does is constant, and if it is not then there is a explanation why it did not.
The process as a whole is guided, and is subject to the laws of nature. The sun cannot by chance behave other than a sun, the light cannot behave other than light and the photons cannot behave other than how photons behave.
Rather than describing it as a chaotic body, the sun and its effects are part of an ordered process and perfectly rational.
In fact, we consider the sun to be a body of such order, that we ourselves have ordered our lives around it.
The plant our crops according to the seasons and stock up for the winter, we set our clocks according to its position and we equip our roofs with solar panels to capture the radiation which is the same today and tomorrow.
: AVZ Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 11:26:57Neither do the photons move around erratically, they too follow a process in which their movement and behavior is predictive.
It is a stochastic process. The movement of any one photon from the center of the sun to the surface is random.
Evolution is not fact or fiction. It is a scientific theory.
Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There are a number of theories to explain it. The modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetics is the one currently accepted by almost all biological scientists.
To Barbarian and others who concludes, on the basis of scientific findings, that God created by evolution, including Adam.
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies. Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.
The Christian believe that God intended and purposely created man from the beginning of creation.
Genesis notes what was there in the beginning and man was not.
Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism.
No. From other primates.
If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case.
Given that God seems to be rather elegant in His creation, I'm thinking that all creatures have a purpose in the larger scheme of things.
And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in scriptures?
He didn't provide a timeline. I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.
The Christian, based on scriptures, counts it to only some 6,000+ years ago
Some modern Christians do. But not most of them.
or as some calculates to be up to 12,000 years ago, but nowhere by the hundred thousands of years ago.
About 150 years ago, the great Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon, thought that it was millions of years old. That is what Bryan said for the Creationist side in the Scopes trial. That was before the Adventists invented YE creationism.
So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?
Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? How about Neandertals? You think they were human? Denesovans? Why does it mean anything at all to you?
Let's see. Since God said in scriptures that we have come from the kind of Adam,
Most creationists says "kind"is genus or family. So that would include every species of homo.
Adam must be of the same species
Genus or family. If you want to use the creationist idea of "kind."
1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?
Nope. We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.
If man continue to evolve as scientist say:
2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?
Rather amazing in His power and creativity.
3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?
Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.
4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?
Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.
5. When will the evolution of man end?
When there are no more humans in this world.
6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?
Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.
7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?
Act of disobedience.
8. How do yo interpret Adam
The first person to have an immortal soul.
and the garden of Eden?
Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 14:28:32
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies. Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.
Wouldn't that make it a guided process then? God stepped in and meddled with the natural process of evolution.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 14:28:32
Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.
Just to make it clear. You reject the Genesis account that claims Eve was made from a rib of Adam, and you reject the New Testament where it says that the woman was made from man?
Barbarian observes:
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies. Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.
Wouldn't that make it a guided process then?
The part where He gives us each a soul directly is guided. Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with evolution, which is a natural phenomenon.
Barbarian observes:
We were created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.
Just to make it clear. You reject the Genesis account that claims Eve was made from a rib of Adam,
No, that's wrong, too. YE creationists reject the plain reading of that parable and want to change it to an historical account.
Females are made from males. You see, males have an X and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. So if a female is born, it is the male parent who determined it. Again, you've tried to change the plain meaning of scripture to make it something else.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 19:17:37
Barbarian observes:
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies. Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.
The part where He gives us each a soul directly is guided. Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with evolution, which is a natural phenomenon.
Barbarian observes:
We were created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.
No, that's wrong, too. YE creationists reject the plain reading of that parable and want to change it to an historical account.
Females are made from males. You see, males have an X and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. So if a female is born, it is the male parent who determined it. Again, you've tried to change the plain meaning of scripture to make it something else.
On the part of the soulSo you do not subscribe to evolution then.
Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural, and claims that humans came to be by purely natural processes including our soul, mind, spirit and morals.
The question that I would have for you is: Was God pleasantly surprised with the evolution of Adam and Eve, as in "Look at that. There are two apes. I think I can do something with that!" or did God purposely worked towards the goal of creating Adam and Eve?
The other question I have: Were the apes Adam and Eve the ONLY apes that "deserved" to be upgraded with a soul, or where there other apes that had reached the same evolutionary standard as Adam and Eve?
If there were no other apes, then how did Adam and Eve reach the same upgradable standard at the same time by evolutionary means, and if there were other apes then why did God not give them a soul as well?
On the part of female originYour biological excerpt does not make sense and neither does it answer the question.
Two males cannot produce one female. It does not matter how many chromosomes a male has, as long as there is no female there can be no reproduction.
You will have to make an argument that the common ancestor was bi-sexual and produced both male and female offspring.
The origin of the female has nothing to do with YE creationism or OE creationism. There are many subscribers to OE creationism who believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib and there is absolutely no conflict. The only conflict is between the accounts listed in scripture and evolution.
You have to reject Genesis 2 as factual, in particular the reading that when Adam was created there was no woman around for him.
You also have to reject 1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14, but I am sure you are going to give it a swing anyway.
Parable or lie?You call Genesis 2 a parable, but that does not make sense.
Lets imagine for a second that Eve was not created from Adam...then Genesis 2 is not a parable, it would be an outright lie.
If it is a parable, then what lesson does it represent?
What lesson is there to learn from "Adam looked around and realized there was no mate for him", if indeed there were plenty of mates around?
And what lesson shall we learn from "God took a rib from Adam and created Eve from it", if indeed Eve was already around and no part of her was taken from Adam?
: 4WD Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 12:53:57
It is a stochastic process. The movement of any one photon from the center of the sun to the surface is random.
That's an empty statement because you have no proof whatsoever to substantiate your claim. The fact is we do not know how the interior process in the sun works exactly.
We do not know how one photon is preferred over another to be next in line to move.
What we do know however is that chaos cannot produce order, and we know that the burning of the sun and it's radiation is an ordered process.
Hence we deduce that the method by which the process operates is an ordered method. Most definitely not a random series of events by chance.
The unpredictability of the individual movement of the photons is exactly the same as the unpredictable individual appearance of lightning in a thunderstorm.
Any scientist would declare you utterly incompetent if you were to claim that lightning moves and appears by chance.
Lightning and photons are part of an ordered processes of which the individual elements cannot be explained in molecular detail, but of which the individual elements are well within the grasp of our intellectual descriptive and predictive comprehension.
On the part of the soul
So you do not subscribe to evolution then.
Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology, then.
Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural,
Nope. Science doesn't in any way deny the supernatural. It just can't say anything about that. So, for example, if God stepped in and said, "hey, I think I'd like people with red hair" and magically created a ginger gene, that would not be contrary to science. It would just be inexplicable. Science can't account for miracles. But scientists can.
and claims that humans came to be by purely natural processes including our soul, mind, spirit and morals.
But as you learned, science doesn't make such a claim.
The question that I would have for you is: Was God pleasantly surprised with the evolution of Adam and Eve, as in "Look at that. There are two apes. I think I can do something with that!" or did God purposely worked towards the goal of creating Adam and Eve?
If God were merely an amazingly competent creature, like us, but far more powerful, that might have been the case. But He's omnipotent. You're selling Him short, here. To be fair, some creationists say that God might be a "space alien." But most Christians would reject that view,and yours.
The other question I have: Were the apes Adam and Eve the ONLY apes that "deserved" to be upgraded with a soul,
You think we got that from God because we "deserved" it? No, God owed us nothing. It was a gift.
or where there other apes that had reached the same evolutionary standard as Adam and Eve?
Suppose that he picked two people from some population of hominids, and gave them a soul and the potential to have fellowship with Him. Would that be offensive to you? I don't see why.
On the part of female origin
Your biological excerpt does not make sense and neither does it answer the question.
From a Christian point of view, it does. Parables are the way God explains things so we can understand them.
Two males cannot produce one female.
Actually, they can, genetically. Two females can't produce one male because there's no Y chromosome. But males have an X and a Y.
You will have to make an argument that the common ancestor was bi-sexual and produced both male and female offspring.
Not if you assume the Christian belief that God chose one man and one woman and gave them immortal souls.
The only conflict is between the accounts listed in scripture and evolution.
Only if you don't think scripture has parables.
You have to reject Genesis 2 as factual, in particular the reading that when Adam was created there was no woman around for him.
So you're saying that God could not have given a woman a soul until later. We know this scripture is parable, since it has God going around, figuring out what a proper companion would be for the man and woman. Obviously, that's not compatible with an omnipotent God, unless it's a parable.
You also have to reject 1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14, but I am sure you are going to give it a swing anyway.
Perhaps you don't know what those two verses actually say. There's nothing there that rules out God's creation of humans.
Parable or lie?
Jesus told parables, so they certainly weren't lies.
Lets imagine for a second that Eve was not created from Adam...then Genesis 2 is not a parable, it would be an outright lie.
If it is a parable, then what lesson does it represent?
What lesson is there to learn from "Adam looked around and realized there was no mate for him", if indeed there were plenty of mates around?
That's not what it says. I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by reading the chapters and thinking a little about them.
And what lesson shall we learn from "God took a rib from Adam and created Eve from it", if indeed Eve was already around and no part of her was taken from Adam?
That would be like someone, hearing Jesus speak of the good Samaritan, and interjecting that it would be very unlikely for a Jew and a Samaritan traveling in the same area. He's be nitpicking details, and losing the whole point of the parable.
That's an empty statement because you have no proof whatsoever to substantiate your claim.
The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood. You've been misinformed about this.
The fact is we do not know how the interior process in the sun works exactly.
How the energy works its way to the surface is well known. This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.
We do not know how one photon is preferred over another to be next in line to move.
It really is a stochastic process. We can observe it in fusion reactions.
What we do know however is that chaos cannot produce order,
Actually, chaos has order. Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn. I was involved with some of that in graduate school. You've been misinformed on that, too.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance. It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 23, 2017 - 07:50:51
The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood. You've been misinformed about this.
How the energy works its way to the surface is well known. This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.
It really is a stochastic process. We can observe it in fusion reactions.
Actually, chaos has order. Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn. I was involved with some of that in graduate school. You've been misinformed on that, too.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance. It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.
Thanks for making my point.
My statement was "chaos cannot
produce order". You have made an excellent point that apparent chaotic process indeed are ordered.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 23, 2017 - 07:37:29
Nope. Science doesn't in any way deny the supernatural. It just can't say anything about that. So, for example, if God stepped in and said, "hey, I think I'd like people with red hair" and magically created a ginger gene, that would not be contrary to science. It would just be inexplicable. Science can't account for miracles. But scientists can.
You are not reading what I write. My statement was "
Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural,"
You answer that
science doesn't deny this. That's not a relevant response, I am talking about evolution, not science.
As I said before, the theory of evolution claims to be an unguided process, based on chance.
Unguided means the exclusion of any and all interference from outside the natural.
All that effort, Barbarian, and AVZ didn't understand a word of it. As I noted earlier, you are a very, very patient man. But usually if someone hasn't grasped the concept of addition and subtraction, the concept of multiplication and division is simply a bridge too far.
: The Barbarian Wed Aug 23, 2017 - 07:50:51
The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood. You've been misinformed about this.
How the energy works its way to the surface is well known. This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.
It really is a stochastic process. We can observe it in fusion reactions.
Actually, chaos has order. Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn. I was involved with some of that in graduate school. You've been misinformed on that, too.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance. It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.
Theory, that is what you work from and theory is not science, theory is what science works from. You post these Theoretical Postulations as if they are a matter of fact and they do not have a legtg to stand on!
I learned before I went to Junior High, in Elementary School, that theories are what scientists think happened. These positions you postulate are not proven and they cannot be proven because they are part of the great delusion promised by God.
And yet one more who seems to be completely ignorant in science. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it is all rather interesting to find such folks voicing opinions on it one way or the other.
It is all rather like my dear grandmother, bless her heart, giving me her opinion on thermodynamics or physics.
: th1b.taylor Wed Aug 23, 2017 - 09:26:58
Theory, that is what you work from and theory is not science, theory is what science works from. You post these Theoretical Postulations as if they are a matter of fact and they do not have a legtg to stand on!
I learned before I went to Junior High, in Elementary School, that theories are what scientists think happened. These positions you postulate are not proven and they cannot be proven because they are part of the great delusion promised by God.
Maybe you aren't understanding exactly what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is;
noun 1. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the
scientific theory of evolution.A scientific theory is not a bunch of "best guesses".
Michael:
Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism.
Barbarian:
No. From other primates.
And primates evolved from.........which evolved from..........simple living organisms.......which evolved from.........non-living matter.......which evolved from.......,light which was created by God.
Michael:
If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case.
Barbarian:
Given that God seems to be rather elegant in His creation, I'm thinking that all creatures have a purpose in the larger scheme of things.
And so think.
Michael:
And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in scriptures?
Barbarian:
He didn't provide a timeline. I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.
And so think again.
Michael:
So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?
Barbarian:
Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? How about Neandertals? You think they were human? Denesovans? Why does it mean anything at all to you?
Being offended is not the issue. I am just asking the Christian evolutionist which among the species of the Homo genus does he place Adam.
I am trying to see the scientific point of view on Adam. What species is he among the many species of the Homo genus. If you can tell me, being the scientists and evolutionist that you are, that will be nice.
Michael:
1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?
Barbarian:
Nope. We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.
And so, man apparently is yet not the intended creature of God at least in terms of what continues to evolve in him.
Michael:
If man continue to evolve as scientist say:
2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?
Barbarian:
Rather amazing in His power and creativity.
The point of the question is that, the continuing evolution of man into something else makes God having no control of His creation of the man He intended to create. Evolution does not at all add anything to God as to be more amazing in His power and creativity. He is equally amazingly omnipotent and creative with or without creation by evolution.
Michael:
3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?
Barbarian:
Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.
Evasive? Way out of context of the question.
Michael:
4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?
Barbarian:
Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.
Now, evolution seem to come to a stop?
Michael:
5. When will the evolution of man end?
Barbarian:
When there are no more humans in this world.
End of the human race? Don't you now believe in scriptures?
Michael:
6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?
Barbarian:
Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.
God said He took a rib from Adam and made it into a woman, Eve. How do you interpret that?
Michael:
7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?
Barbarian:
Act of disobedience.
Obviously out of context of the question.
Michael:
How do yo interpret Adam
Barbarian:
The first person to have an immortal soul.
And the rest of the Homo Sapien with Adam, what became of them?
Michael:
and the garden of Eden?
Barbarian:
Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.
And what do scientists say, did they have dominion over the fish, birds, beasts and all? Did they commune together peacefully with them? In their time what do scientists observe on the probable behavior of the animals, the wild especially, then toward the Homo Sapien?
Can you tell us if snakes by then already crawled on their belly or have legs?
Barbarian notes:
Humans evolved from other primates.
And primates evolved from.....
Sorry, no bunny trails for you today.
And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in scriptures?
Barbarian observes:
He didn't provide a timeline. I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.
Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?
Barbarian asks:
Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? How about Neandertals? You think they were human? Denesovans? Why does it mean anything at all to you?
Being offended is not the issue.
Why else would you be so obsessed with the details He didn't consider important?
I am trying to see the scientific point of view on Adam.
What's wrong with the Christian one? They are compatible, but different things.
What species is he among the many species of the Homo genus.
No one knows. Doesn't matter.
Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?
Barbarian observes:
Nope. We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.
And so, man apparently is yet not the intended creature of God at least in terms of what continues to evolve in him.
That sounds like the argument an atheist would make. What makes you think that God isn't satisfied with us, just because humans occasionally evolve an improvement? Why do you think it matters?
If man continue to evolve as scientist say: What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?
Barbarian observes:
Rather amazing in His power and creativity.
Evolution does not at all add anything to God as to be more amazing in His power and creativity.
YE creationists are uneasy with a God that powerful. I get that.
What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?
Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.
Evasive?
You keep hoping that there's some kind of evolutionary theology. Sorry. Just not there.
Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?
Barbarian observes:
Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.
Now, evolution seem to come to a stop?
Nope. You really don't understand what evolution is, do you? Just so we know, how about telling us the five points of Darwinian theory and how genetics changed them?
When will the evolution of man end?
Barbarian:
When there are no more humans in this world.
End of the human race?
When we give up our earthly bodies for imperishable ones. Don't you now believe in scriptures?
God said He took a rib from Adam and made it into a woman, Eve. How do you interpret that?
Parable like much else in Genesis.
How do you interpret the fall of Adam?
Act of disobedience.
Obviously out of context of the question.
It's what God says. I think you should believe Him.
The first person to have an immortal soul.
And the rest of the Homo Sapien with Adam, what became of them?
What makes you think they were H. sapiens?
and the garden of Eden?
Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.
And what do scientists say
Christian, Jewish and Muslim scientists say that.
Can you tell us if snakes by then already crawled on their belly or have legs?
Actually, the original says "serpent"; some serpents have legs. Why would it matter?
If you pare away all the new doctrines you're holding onto, and just let it be Gods way, I think it would be a lot easier for you to accept Him.
From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/
Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.
So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
Gen. 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
The eyes.
: Michael2012 Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 12:24:35
From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/
Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.
So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
The problem with your comprehension and understanding is demonstrated and noted.
: Michael2012 Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 12:24:35
From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/ (https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/)
Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.
So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
Gen. 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
The eyes.
lol, that certainly isn't the definition of science, it's from the NASA kids website;
NASA Space Place is an award winning educational website about space and Earth science targeting upper-elementary aged children. Launched in 1998, it was the first NASA website to create content about multiple missions directly for childrenSecondly, it would have been good of you to keep going to see what else the kids page says about science;
Anyone can have an idea about how nature works. Some people think their idea is correct because "it seems right" or "it makes sense." But for a scientist (who could be you!), this is not enough. A scientist will test the idea in the real world. An idea that predicts how the world works is called a hypothesis.
If an idea, or hypothesis, correctly predicts how something will behave, we call it a theory. If an idea explains all the facts, or evidence, that we have found, we also call it a theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.Nice try at deflecting but science is what it is.
If an idea, or hypothesis, correctly predicts how something will behave, we call it a theory. If an idea explains all the facts, or evidence, that we have found, we also call it a theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Yep. A hypothesis is using what you already know, to investigate something you don't know. When testing confirms your hypothesis again and again, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. And "theory" is as certain as it gets in science. A well-tested idea or group of ideas that explain physical phenomena.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 16:15:32
Yep. A hypothesis is using what you already know, to investigate something you don't know. When testing confirms your hypothesis again and again, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. And "theory" is as certain as it gets in science. A well-tested idea or group of ideas that explain physical phenomena.
The terms fact, theory and law mean something else in science than what they mean in the normal use.
Therein lies the problem.
Scientific facts are based on observations, insofar they can be observed. These facts however are not necessarily empirically true. Now observations can change or amend facts.
A scientific theory is based on those facts, and if the facts are subject to modification...then so is the theory.
Scientific laws are observations as well, but laws do not attempt to explain the observation mostly because we are unable to explain them.
So, scientific facts and their deduction by scientific theories are not necessarily truth. They are subject to chance and they may be completely false.
Hence, in the normal vernacular, it is understood that the Evolution Theory is not a fact, meaning it is not empirical truth.
Furthermore even in the scientific vernacular Evolution Theory is not fact in itself. It is a collection of potentially fallible scientific facts from which a potentially fallible theory is deduced.
: 4WD Wed Aug 23, 2017 - 08:35:15
All that effort, Barbarian, and AVZ didn't understand a word of it. As I noted earlier, you are a very, very patient man. But usually if someone hasn't grasped the concept of addition and subtraction, the concept of multiplication and division is simply a bridge too far.
The problem is that you neither understand chaos theory, and you do not implement it correctly.
Chaos theory is a predictive tool. What is means to say is that because of extremely small (undetectable) variables in the initial conditions of a system, outcomes may vary wildly.
The system itself however will remain to be a functioning system bound by natural rules and laws.
Chaos theory is a theory that addresses prediction...it looks forward. Once a "chaotic" result is verified however and we look backwards to it's cause, then all the elements in that system were completely coherent and subject to the laws of nature. The elements did not arise by chance, they were caused.
Now, since you understand these matters better than I do, can you please explain to me why this photon, which you claim to behave chaotically by chance, becomes ordered once it reaches the surface of the sun?
Are you indeed making the claim that the interior of the sun is not subject to ordering mechanisms, but the surface of the sun is?
Or are you making the claim that photons never become ordered and their behavior remains chaotic and by chance after they departed from the surface of the sun?
Thanks for making my point.
My statement was "chaos cannot produce order".
That's like saying "trees cannot produce plants."
You have made an excellent point that apparent chaotic process indeed are ordered.
You don't understand what "chaos" means. Completely chaotic systems have an intrinsic order, and we see such systems produce higher levels of order. Would you like to learn about some of them?
The terms fact, theory and law mean something else in science than what they mean in the normal use.
Yes. For example, theories are stronger things than laws.
Therein lies the problem.
Yes. Someone not scientifically literate usually sees "theory" as kind of an educated guess. Which is completely wrong.
Scientific facts are based on observations, insofar they can be observed. These facts however are not necessarily empirically true. Now observations can change or amend facts.
A scientific theory is based on those facts, and if the facts are subject to modification...then so is the theory.
All theories are improved as time goes on, or if they no longer accurately explain the facts, are discarded for better theories.
Scientific laws are observations as well,
No. They are statements of what scientists expect to see under certain conditions.
but laws do not attempt to explain the observation mostly because we are unable to explain them.
For example, Kepler's Laws showed how planets moved around the Sun.
Newton's theory of gravity showed why they do so, and in explaining why, enlarged the phenomena under the theory to include planets, moons, and the apple falling out of a tree. This is why theories are stronger than laws. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things.
Hence, in the normal vernacular, it is understood that the Evolution Theory is not a fact, meaning it is not empirical truth.
Evolution is an observed fact. Evolutionary theory explains why it happens.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 22:13:07
That's like saying "trees cannot produce plants."
Not at all. Trees and plants are different classifications. Order and disorder are not.
It is like saying disorder cannot create order. Disorder can only be ordered by an external system.
It is the Achilles heel of evolution. And that's why evolution appeals to chance, even though the chance is insurmountably improbable
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 22:13:07
You don't understand what "chaos" means. Completely chaotic systems have an intrinsic order, and we see such systems produce higher levels of order. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Thats a contradiction. If a system has an intrinsic order then it cannot be completely chaotic. A completely chaotic system would have no order whatsoever.
Such systems do not exist.
Your other claim is false. Chaotic systems cannot produce higher levels of order...they are being ordered. As I said, chaos cannot produce order, and a completely chaotic system cannot order itself.
I wonder why this discussion even takes place because evolution is neither chaotic nor ordered.
It's not upwards predictable nor is it downwards deducible and neither is it ordered. Evolution claims the be a product of chance without the interference of an ordering agent.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 22:20:03
This is why theories are stronger than laws. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things.
Thats just a weird statement.
Theories have a higher explanatory value, which makes the application of the law more comprehensible.
Theories however have a much higher tendency to be incorrect or subject to modification, and that makes them weak again.
: Alan Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 15:49:47
Michael:
From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/
Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.
So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
Gen. 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
The eyes.
lol, that certainly isn't the definition of science, it's from the NASA kids website; NASA Space Place is an award winning educational website about space and Earth science targeting upper-elementary aged children. Launched in 1998, it was the first NASA website to create content about multiple missions directly for children
That's right, for children. I thought of posting what NASA teach children what science is so people here who are like a child in the field of science can understand what science is at the simplest terms. And what NASA is saying is that it's basically about observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
Now, if that does not define what science is basically, then NASA is teaching children a lie, if not, a deception. And this brought me to the Genesis 3:4.
science is observable and repeatable.
NO-ONE has seen a dog come from a non-dog.
: KiwiChristian Fri Aug 25, 2017 - 05:33:04
science is observable and repeatable.
NO-ONE has seen a dog come from a non-dog.
NO-ONE has seen an atom split but we have observed the phenomena and can verify that it has occurred.
: Michael2012 Fri Aug 25, 2017 - 01:35:49
lol, that certainly isn't the definition of science, it's from the NASA kids website; NASA Space Place is an award winning educational website about space and Earth science targeting upper-elementary aged children. Launched in 1998, it was the first NASA website to create content about multiple missions directly for children
That's right, for children. I thought of posting what NASA teach children what science is so people here who are like a child in the field of science can understand what science is at the simplest terms. And what NASA is saying is that it's basically about observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.
Now, if that does not define what science is basically, then NASA is teaching children a lie, if not, a deception. And this brought me to the Genesis 3:4.
As I stated above, your version of what NASA is saying that science "is", is incomplete by a landslide, it is NOT just about the eye, that is twisting the definition scientific observation. I suggest you start over, perhaps NASA Space Place is above your comprehension.
: AVZ Thu Aug 24, 2017 - 21:10:50
The terms fact, theory and law mean something else in science than what they mean in the normal use.
Therein lies the problem.
Scientific facts are based on observations, insofar they can be observed. These facts however are not necessarily empirically true. Now observations can change or amend facts.
A scientific theory is based on those facts, and if the facts are subject to modification...then so is the theory.
Scientific laws are observations as well, but laws do not attempt to explain the observation mostly because we are unable to explain them.
So, scientific facts and their deduction by scientific theories are not necessarily truth. They are subject to chance and they may be completely false.
Hence, in the normal vernacular, it is understood that the Evolution Theory is not a fact, meaning it is not empirical truth.
Furthermore even in the scientific vernacular Evolution Theory is not fact in itself. It is a collection of potentially fallible scientific facts from which a potentially fallible theory is deduced.
I can agree in part, scientific theory is most definitely subject to change when continued testing and observation reveal new facts on a particular subject, the problem with most people that reject scientific theory as factual is that today's scientific theories do not become unglued, rather they are expanded upon based upon yesterday's findings coupled with new data. For example;
"A few years ago, the WMAP spacecraft looked at the Universe much as Planck has, and for the time got the best determination of the cosmic age: 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old. Planck has found that the Universe is nearly 100 million years older than that: 13.82 billion years".
Barbarian observes:
This is why theories are stronger than laws. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things.
Thats just a weird statement.
Might seem so, if you don't understand what "law" and "theory" mean.
Theories have a higher explanatory value, which makes the application of the law more comprehensible.
As I showed you, Kepler's laws only worked for predicting motions of planets.
Newton's theory of gravitation, was about the same phenomenon, but made it understandable and hence applicable to all matter in the universe. Huge difference.
Theories however have a much higher tendency to be incorrect
Nope. Cope's Law, for example, turned out to be wrong. Kepler's laws turned out to be only approximately correct, but not precisely true.
The strength of theories is their power to explain phenomena that allows them to be used for new applications and to gain new knowledge.
Barbarian, regarding the claim that "chaos cannot produce order"
That's like saying "trees cannot produce plants."
Not at all.
Absolutely, it is. Trees are a kind of plant. And as you learned, chaos is a kind of order. Chaotic systems have their own sort of order, which can be mathematically investigated.
It is like saying disorder cannot create order.
Nope. Chaos is not disorder.
Disorder can only be ordered by an external system.
Hurricanes are highly complex ordered systems with many ordered subsystems. Yet they form from nothing more than water, air, gravity and the Earth's rotaton. There are lots of other examples. Would you like to learn about some of them?
It is the Achilles heel of evolution.
We see highly ordered organsism arise from one or two simple cells. If you were right, that couldn't happen.
And that's why evolution appeals to chance
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. You were misled about that, too.
Barbarian observes:
You don't understand what "chaos" means. Completely chaotic systems have an intrinsic order, and we see such systems produce higher levels of order. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Thats a contradiction. If a system has an intrinsic order then it cannot be completely chaotic.
This goes back to you not understanding what "chaos" means.
In common usage, "chaos" means "a state of disorder".[13] However, in chaos theory, the term is defined more precisely. Although no universally accepted mathematical definition of chaos exists, a commonly used definition originally formulated by Robert L. Devaney says that, to classify a dynamical system as chaotic, it must have these properties:[14]
it must be sensitive to initial conditions
it must be topologically mixing
it must have dense periodic orbits
In some cases, the last two properties in the above have been shown to actually imply sensitivity to initial conditions.[15][16] In these cases, while it is often the most practically significant property, "sensitivity to initial conditions" need not be stated in the definition.
If attention is restricted to intervals, the second property implies the other two.[17] An alternative, and in general weaker, definition of chaos uses only the first two properties in the above list.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Evolution claims the be a product of chance without the interference of an ordering agent.
You've been misled about that, too. It's called "natural selection." Darwin's great discovery was that it is not by chance.
science is observable and repeatable.
NO-ONE has seen a dog come from a non-dog.
No one has seen a giant redwood grow from a seed.
How can we then say that they do?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ancient-giant-viruses-waking-up-ice-2017-5
The following quote is from the above link for those interested in reading the entire article. All emphasis in the following quotes is mine.
Ancient, giant viruses are being unearthed in Arctic ice that's at risk of melting
Scientists working in the Arctic circle over the past few decades have unearthed several massive viruses that some say could be re-awakened if the permafrost that imprisons them dissolves......................
About a decade earlier, scientists discovered the first Mimivirus, a 1,200-gene specimen measuring twice the width of traditional viruses, buried beneath layers of melting frost in the Russian tundra. (For comparison, HIV has just nine genes.)
Recently, some researchers have suggested that these enormous viruses could thaw out, escape, and make lots of people sick. It sounds like something out of a 1990s horror film. But you shouldn't get too concerned — at least not yet.......................
Zimmer added in an email on May 8 that most of these massive viruses have been found after melting samples of Arctic ice in a lab — they're not currently crawling along the the Russian tundra like some microscopic Frankenstein.....................
But that doesn't mean the recent discoveries are useless. Instead, they're teaching us valuable things about the nature of viruses, which we previously assumed to be fairly small and simple. These ancient viruses, on the other hand, are about 30 times bigger than your average virus, and rival the size of a bacterium.
Mollivirus sibericum, for example, looks like this under a microscope:
In addition to its unusual size, Mollivirus sibericum differs from the vast majority of viruses in that has more than 500 genes that give instructions for making proteins.
"They're in and of themselves fascinating and they really challenge us to think about what viruses are," Zimmer says.
Viruses are technically not considered alive, but these giant ones seem to have some qualities of life, like a functioning metabolism. If we're ever going to reevaluate the characteristics of viruses, these ancient thawed-out ones could make us take a fresh look.
No matter how much evidence comes to light suggesting the biblical account of creation is true, the science of this world continues to deny all of the same. With large numbers of professed "Christians" accepting and even backing up these obstinate denials.
So now, scientists find ancient viruses of superior size, design, and complexity to any now existing. We've already found an abundance of trees, vegetation, birds, reptiles, mammals, and insects all of superior size to that of those which now exist. All of this logically concludes that the world and everything in it was once superior to what it now is. Nevertheless, the false science of this world continues to feed the lies of slow evolutionary processes from simple to more complex as the cause of our present state of existence. All of which flies in the face of the account which God's word gives to us, causing serious inconsistencies in the creation account, account of the fall, sin and our need of salvation from it, the flood account, and therefore all future predicted events of lesser or equal magnitude which the scriptures warn us of.
The deniers refuse all evidence of the flood itself, although they are completely dependent upon flood conditions for preserving almost all the fossils they rely upon to formulate their false theories. Which fossils are found worldwide including mountain tops everywhere. They completely ignore all anomalies which suggest their theory is in fact faulty, such as many objects found in coal or solid rock that simply cannot fit the parameters of their theory, including man made objects in the same which is supposedly millions of years old. This includes all evidence as well of civilizations, artifacts, structures, and or technology which predates their false theory as well. Let's not forget of course the issue of soft tissues now being found in fossilized creatures presumed to be up to over a hundred million years old. Nothing fazes their determination to be deceived. With no hesitation they simply accept that these soft tissues could last all of these ions, rather than even begin to entertain the idea that the word of God means exactly what it says regarding the creation of this world.
Despite all of this and much more not addressed, Creationists are consistently the ones accused of ignoring the actual physical evidence before us. The logic of this world is completely polluted and contaminated with the love of self above God and His word. It exists in defiance of the same, and cannot, and will not be reconciled with the plain testimony of truth contained within it. Strong delusion is near at hand for all who refuse the truths if God's word.
2 These 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
: The Barbarian Fri Aug 25, 2017 - 11:12:15
No one has seen a giant redwood grow from a seed.
How can we then say that they do?
That claim is of course completely false.
Giant Redwoods drop cones, in the cones are seeds. When planted those seeds grow little giant redwood sprouts. From there the sprouts grow bigger and mature.
The only difference between a mature Giant Redwood and a sprout is that it is a lot bigger. It is however still the same tree.
This process is observable and that's how we can say that they do.
What does not happen however is that the Giant Redwood drops seeds that grow Tomato plants.
Barbarian observes:
No one has seen a giant redwood grow from a seed.
How can we then say that they do?
That claim is of course completely false.
It's completely true. No one has ever seen that happen.
Giant Redwoods drop cones, in the cones are seeds. When planted those seeds grow little giant redwood sprouts. From there the sprouts grow bigger and mature.
The only difference between a mature Giant Redwood and a sprout is that it is a lot bigger. It is however still the same tree.
No, it's a different tree, and no one ever saw it grow to adulthood from a seed. You're arguing that just because we can see all the stages of growth over time, that means we can assume that it means giant redwoods grow from seeds.
That's as crazy as saying that just because we can see all the stages of evolution in the fossil record, that means evolution happened.
Of course ancient viruses would be bigger and more complex than modern ones. Viruses weren't created magically. They are degenerate organisms, or fragments of organisms that depend on living organisms to reproduce.
These giant viruses are carrying on metabolism, and therefore are alive in the usual sense of the world. They are transitional between organisms and viruses.
While they could pose a danger, I expect their size and complexity would make them vulnerable to human immune systems.
Of course ancient viruses would be bigger and more complex than modern ones. Viruses weren't created magically. They are degenerate organisms, or fragments of organisms that depend on living organisms to reproduce.
Yes, living organisms of a world filled with plants and animals much larger than those existing today, in an environment and atmosphere capable of supporting the same. All of which was destroyed by the flood, and replaced by the now existing smaller and inferior world. Just as scripture testifies in the creation and flood accounts. Countless ages of evolution from simple to more complex is a false theory. The evidence of this is abundant and ever increasing.
Ancient giant this and giant that all over the world support biblical account of pre-flood superior world able to support giant plants, animals, and humans. All ignored as such of course by the scientists of this world in rebellion against God's word.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029132924.htm
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/larger-organisms/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-giant-insects.html
https://www.livescience.com/18735-ancient-fossil-forest.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-before-trees-overtook-the-land-earth-was-covered-by-giant-mushrooms-13709647/
https://www.seeker.com/ancient-giant-trees-found-petrified-in-thailand-1767323026.html
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/giant-ancient-skull-unearthed-in-alaska-may-have-once-belonged-to-a-king-bear/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ancient-giant-platypus-discovered-australia/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/health/ancient-squirrel-leads-to-giant-virus-discovery/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3622134/The-world-s-oldest-plant-root-320-million-year-old-fossilised-stem-cells-giant-rainforest-differently-trees-grew.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170210131348.htm
https://www.enkivillage.org/prehistoric-animals.html
https://www.livescience.com/51793-extinct-ice-age-megafauna.html
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150507-ten-lost-giants-from-earths-past
https://www.livescience.com/13670-25-amazing-ancient-beasts-dinosaurs-reptiles.html
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/large-ancient-penguin-fossils-found-2017-2/
https://www.nature.com/news/how-giant-marine-reptiles-terrorized-the-ancient-seas-1.21722
https://earth-chronicles.com/science/ancient-giant-animals-became-extinct-from-starvation.html
https://www.seeker.com/giant-ancient-sea-scorpions-had-bad-eyesight-1768774170.html
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/extinct-animals/why-were-prehistoric-animals-big.htm
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Yes, living organisms of a world filled with plants and animals much larger than those existing today,
In the case of these halfway viruses, they confirm the prediction of evolutionary theory that viruses are simplified forms from more complex parasites.
in an environment and atmosphere capable of supporting the same.
Confirming the prediction that hundreds of millions of years ago, there a higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere. And yes, we can know that from geochemistry.
All of which was destroyed by the flood
Since neither the Bible nor evidence supports a worldwide flood, that's just an unsupported new belief.
and replaced by the now existing smaller and inferior world.
A world without flowers, grasses, giraffes, land animals other than insects, and primates, is hardly what any rational person would call "superior."
Just as scripture testifies in the creation and flood accounts.
As you know, neither the creation nor the flood account supports YE creationism.
Countless ages of evolution from simple to more complex is a false theory.
That is a false theory but it's not part of evolution or of evolutionary theory. In many cases, such as viruses, things got simpler. Humans, for example have many features that are simplified versions of reptilian structures. Would you like to learn about that?
And we have a full-formed Gish Gallop in progress. Let's start debunking...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029132924.htm
This one actually denies much of what you were claiming. Did you read it?
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/larger-organisms/
This is just foolish. Contrary to their claims, the largest mammal ever is alive today, also the largest whale ever
Largest fish ever to live is alive today. Leedsichthys problematicus once thought to be the largest fish is about as large as a whale shark.
Largest giraffe ever is alive today.
Largest Tree ever is alive today.
And so on.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-giant-insects.html
This just mentions that the exact reason some insects were very large, remains unclear. So nothing there to support you new doctrines.
https://www.livescience.com/18735-ancient-fossil-forest.html
All of these species of trees were known previously. What, exactly, about this do you think supports your new doctrine?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-before-trees-overtook-the-land-earth-was-covered-by-giant-mushrooms-13709647/
This just says that maybe fungi were really big at one time. However the fossil, if that's what it is, is much smaller than the largest fungus known (which is alive today)
I guess I'll pick up on this again, in another post, but it looks like the usual. A lot of links, in hopes that no one actually looks at them.
Giant frogs -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080218-giant-frog.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16frog.html
Giant ants -
https://www.livescience.com/14008-giant-ant-fossil.html
Giant worms -
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/24/14725912/giant-marine-bobbit-worm-earth-oldest-killer-jaws
Giant snakes -
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17544885
Giant crocodiles -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160111-ancient-crocodile-marine-largest-paleontology/
Giant kangaroos -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/16/giant-kangaroos-walked_n_5996588.html
Giant lions -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stone-age-cave-lions-hunted-to-extinction-to-make-rugs-ritual-religion-a7381556.html
Giant rats -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/ratzilla-ancient-giant-rodent-chomped-crocodile
Try it yourself, type ancient giant —————- in your search engine. The pre-flood world was filled with creatures of giant stature compared to us, the evidence of which is all around us. Accepting of course for the scientists of this world in rebellion against God's word.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 26, 2017 - 09:39:34
No, it's a different tree, and no one ever saw it grow to adulthood from a seed. You're arguing that just because we can see all the stages of growth over time, that means we can assume that it means giant redwoods grow from seeds.
Sorry Barbarian, I am not going to waste time on this.
I am sure you realize your position is untenable, so better to discuss something that actually is relevant and meets some level of integrity.
: The Barbarian Sat Aug 26, 2017 - 18:06:05
This is just foolish. Contrary to their claims, the largest mammal ever is alive today, also the largest whale ever
Largest fish ever to live is alive today. Leedsichthys problematicus once thought to be the largest fish is about as large as a whale shark.
Largest giraffe ever is alive today.
Largest Tree ever is alive today.
And so on.
And you are going to prove this how?
Sorry Barbarian, I am not going to waste time on this.
Good thought. As you see, the argument "we can't know anything we haven't seen happen", is a loser. I am sure you realize your position is untenable; declaring victory and bailing out might seem like the best course for you. But maybe, if you thought about what you just learned, it might be worth the effort.
Barbarian observes:
This is just foolish. Contrary to their claims, the largest mammal ever is alive today, also the largest whale ever
Largest fish ever to live is alive today. Leedsichthys problematicus once thought to be the largest fish is about as large as a whale shark.
Largest giraffe ever is alive today.
Largest Tree ever is alive today.
And so on.
And you are going to prove this how?
Fossil record. As you have seen, many things got bigger over time. That's the general trend in vertebrates, sometimes called "Cope's Rule." Organisms in a given lineage tend to get larger. But it's often the other way around. Primates got bigger, but there was one primate that lived not long ago, that was larger than a gorilla. Elephants got larger over time, but the largest elephant was in the ice age. But the general trend is larger.
Cope's Rule is the observation that animal groups tend to evolve through time towards larger body size. Edward Drinker Cope (1840-1897) never formally stated this rule, but it is implicit in many of his writings. Cope is famous for his work on dinosaurs and fossil mammals; indeed, his long-standing rivalry with Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) is well known. Cope was an evolutionist, and he wrote textbooks that promoted Darwinism. In these, he reconstructed phylogenies of reptiles and mammals, and in doing so, he noted how mean body size increased through time; classic examples include the evolution of the horses from terrier-sized Hyracotherium from the Eocene to the modern, which is twenty times the size.
There has been debate about whether Cope's rule should be termed a law, but that is not possible because of exceptions to his observation, and also because, if it were termed Cope's law, there would be an implication of an innate force that drove animals to become bigger. Exceptions to Cope's observation include many cases of evolution to small size, for example on islands (dwarf dinosaurs in the Romanian Cretaceous, dwarf Pleistocene elephants on Mediterranean islands), or in association with adaptations to cave life or burrowing. A rule is, according to Webster, 'a generally prevailing condition,' which is the true status of Cope's observation.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/benton/reprints/2002Copesrule.html
Buried forests preserved all over the world, more consistent with global flood than ions of slow development, change, and catastrophe. Ignored or defined to fit the parameters of their own views by the scientists of this world in rebellion against God's word.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=50
http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/forest/htmls/how_bury.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101217-mummified-forest-canada-science-environment/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140226-wales-borth-bronze-age-forest-legend/
http://www.geotimes.org/apr00/paleobotany.html
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/06/underwater_forest_discovered_alabama.html
http://mustdonewzealand.co.nz/tours/kauri-gumdiggers-park-far-north-buried-kauri-forest/
https://gizmodo.com/5887454/first-photos-of-chinas-298-million-year-old-buried-forest
http://www.businessinsider.com/siberias-doorway-to-the-underworld-huge-hole-permafrost-2017-2
http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2016-05-16/ancient-forest-buried-under-sand-on-northumberland-coast/
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/06/26/buried-alive-petrifying-true-story-forest-turned-stone
http://www.nature-sanbe.jp/buried_forest/
http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/Pregitzer_JEcology_2000.pdf
http://www.wisconsinhistoricalmarkers.com/2013/08/an-ancient-forest-bed.html
http://www.showme.net/~fkeller/quake/lib/rainforestdanville.htm
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2014/feb/21/prehistoric-forest-uncovered-by-storms-in-cardigan-bay-in-pictures
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/breaking/2000/forest.html
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 27, 2017 - 09:51:47
Barbarian observes:
This is just foolish. Contrary to their claims, the largest mammal ever is alive today, also the largest whale ever
Largest fish ever to live is alive today. Leedsichthys problematicus once thought to be the largest fish is about as large as a whale shark.
Largest giraffe ever is alive today.
Largest Tree ever is alive today.
And so on.
Fossil record. As you have seen, many things got bigger over time. That's the general trend in vertebrates, sometimes called "Cope's Rule." Organisms in a given lineage tend to get larger. But it's often the other way around. Primates got bigger, but there was one primate that lived not long ago, that was larger than a gorilla. Elephants got larger over time, but the largest elephant was in the ice age. But the general trend is larger.
Cope's Rule is the observation that animal groups tend to evolve through time towards larger body size. Edward Drinker Cope (1840-1897) never formally stated this rule, but it is implicit in many of his writings. Cope is famous for his work on dinosaurs and fossil mammals; indeed, his long-standing rivalry with Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) is well known. Cope was an evolutionist, and he wrote textbooks that promoted Darwinism. In these, he reconstructed phylogenies of reptiles and mammals, and in doing so, he noted how mean body size increased through time; classic examples include the evolution of the horses from terrier-sized Hyracotherium from the Eocene to the modern, which is twenty times the size.
There has been debate about whether Cope's rule should be termed a law, but that is not possible because of exceptions to his observation, and also because, if it were termed Cope's law, there would be an implication of an innate force that drove animals to become bigger. Exceptions to Cope's observation include many cases of evolution to small size, for example on islands (dwarf dinosaurs in the Romanian Cretaceous, dwarf Pleistocene elephants on Mediterranean islands), or in association with adaptations to cave life or burrowing. A rule is, according to Webster, 'a generally prevailing condition,' which is the true status of Cope's observation.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/benton/reprints/2002Copesrule.html
http://www.strangescience.net/cope.htm
Quotes -
Cope and Marsh started out as friends, meeting in Europe and hunting fossils together in the eastern United States. But when he visited one of Cope's digs in New Jersey, Marsh covertly paid Cope's crew to send future finds to him (Marsh). The already strained relationship turned truly ugly when Marsh claimed to have pointed out (accurately) that Cope had mounted the skull of a plesiosaur, Elasmosaurus, on the tip of its tail, not its neck. (By some accounts, it was actually Cope's mentor Joseph Leidy who pointed out the mistake.) Cope was so mortified at his mistake that he tried to buy up and replace all the printed copies of the publication in which the fossil was described, but Marsh wouldn't let this mistake die (nor would he relinquish his own copy of the erroneous paper). To make matters worse, the corrected publication did not bear a later date, perhaps giving some the impression that Cope was trying to hide — rather than correct — his mistake...............................
When Cope and Marsh began their research in paleontology, only 18 dinosaur species were known to North America. Between the two of them, these men named more than 130 new dinosaur species. Among the valid identifications, unfortunately, were plenty of misinterpretations and multiple names for the same species. The men didn't consult each other, so this was to be expected.................................
Fanatical commitment to science aside, Cope often engaged in behavior that, by today's standards of science, qualify as criminal. When he'd finished excavating a particular site, he would order his assistants to dynamite it, rendering it useless for any other fossil digger. Yet his own unscrupulousness didn't prevent him from seeing himself as a victim. Among the species he named was a marsupial mammal he dubbed Anisonchus cophater, or "jagged-toothed Cope hater."....................
Go to, continue to put your faith in fallen humanity, I will stick with the word of God.
Go to, continue to put your faith in fallen humanity,
You've put your faith in a revision of scripture by fallen men. They favor a new interpretation of the Creation story as a literal history instead of a figurative description.
While it's not a salvation issue, I will stick with the word of God.
As you see, today scientists realize that "Cope's Law" is a rule of thumb, but not true in all cases. It merely shows that the historical trend is for lineages of animals to get larger over time.
Obviously, with all the lineages I mentioned, they got larger. In some cases, the largest example ever is still living today. So that creationist story is wrong by default.
Let's look at some more of the gallop;
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=50
Trees like that are being formed near my house, having been covered with water by flooding when a new dam was built a few decades ago. They are now being buried in silt like your forest.
Perhaps tens of thousands of years from now, if there are still creationists, one of them will point to it as evidence for a worldwide flood.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 27, 2017 - 12:25:05
You've put your faith in a revision of scripture by fallen men. They favor a new interpretation of the Creation story as a literal history instead of a figurative description.
While it's not a salvation issue, I will stick with the word of God.
As you see, today scientists realize that "Cope's Law" is a rule of thumb, but not true in all cases. It merely shows that the historical trend is for lineages of animals to get larger over time.
Obviously, with all the lineages I mentioned, they got larger. In some cases, the largest example ever is still living today. So that creationist story is wrong by default.
Your eyes and mind are closed, you are delusional. You reject the plain conclusive testimony of scripture because you wish to believe otherwise. That is all.
Ps 33:1 Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the Lord with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.https://uintacountyherald.com/article/dinosaur-soft-tissues-raise-tantalizing-questions
For the past six years, curators at the Royal Tyrell museum in Alberta, Canada, have spent more than 7,000 hours preparing a remarkable dinosaur, a nodosaur, for display. (Michael Greshko, "The Amazing Dinosaur Found (Accidentally) by Miners in Canada," National Geographic, June 2017). What makes this nodosaur so special is that it was buried with a ticking clock inside.
Of course, I don't mean it swallowed a pocket watch. Rather, initial reports indicate that it is loaded with original biological material called soft tissues. Such tissues (mostly proteins) decay at scientifically measurable rates, which can be compared to their actual state of decay to calculate the age of the carcass.
Normal carbon-14 dating methods do not work for dinosaurs. Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5,730 years, it is only useful for dating things less than 20,000 years old. Dinosaurs are currently believed to be tens of millions of years old.
In fact, it turns out that this nodosaur is not the only specimen with soft tissues. Over the past couple of decades, scientists have found various kinds of soft-tissues in about 200 different specimens. This first came to my attention when Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered something like marrow inside the femur of a T. Rex found in Montana (2004). Another famous discovery is well-preserved Hadrosaur skin also found in Montana (2015).
With so many discoveries and with a quarter-century to test them and publish the results, what conclusions has science drawn? Crickets, mostly. Even this remarkable nodosaur has been in the possession of scientists for six years, but there is still no peer-reviewed study of its tissues. Why not?
The answer seems pretty obvious. There is currently no known mechanism that could preserve soft-tissues for more than a million years, and most would have decayed within a few thousand. Such results are radically different from current assumptions about the age of dinosaurs.
So, rather than publish results that contradict current scientific consensus, many are feverishly looking for a way that these soft-tissues could be preserved tens of millions of years longer than every scientific expectation.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 27, 2017 - 09:51:47
Barbarian observes:
This is just foolish. Contrary to their claims, the largest mammal ever is alive today, also the largest whale ever
Largest fish ever to live is alive today. Leedsichthys problematicus once thought to be the largest fish is about as large as a whale shark.
Largest giraffe ever is alive today.
Largest Tree ever is alive today.
And so on.
Fossil record. As you have seen, many things got bigger over time. That's the general trend in vertebrates, sometimes called "Cope's Rule." Organisms in a given lineage tend to get larger. But it's often the other way around. Primates got bigger, but there was one primate that lived not long ago, that was larger than a gorilla. Elephants got larger over time, but the largest elephant was in the ice age. But the general trend is larger.
So you have taken the conclusive position that every possible fossil has been found, and no lager mammal, whale, giraffe or tree will ever be found.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 27, 2017 - 09:46:19
Good thought. As you see, the argument "we can't know anything we haven't seen happen", is a loser. I am sure you realize your position is untenable; declaring victory and bailing out might seem like the best course for you. But maybe, if you thought about what you just learned, it might be worth the effort.
Barbarian, you are losing track of the real argument.
A) Nobody has claimed that "we can't know anything we haven't seen happen".
B) You know as well as I do that your argument of a small Giant Redwood growing into a large Giant Redwood stands in no comparison to millions of years of morphological evolution of which only a handful of alleged intermediaries are found.
Let me ask you a question.
The ancestral tree of whales go back to a dog-like land animal some 50 million years ago.
Can you give me a number of morphological changes that should have taken place from dog-to-whale?
We are talking a complete change of internal organs and a complete change of external features.
Lets take the high estimation and assume dogs and whales on an average live to a 100 years.
We know that dogs do not live that long and whales are unlikely to live that long, so the estimate is going to be in your favor.
For sake of argument lets also say that every next generation follows the previous generation immediately after the death of the old generation, so no overlaps.
Between 50 million years ago and today we would have 500,000 generations.
Now lets say within each generation there are 1 million individuals, that would leave us with 500 billion individuals
And how many alleged intermediary morphological species does science claims it has....5!
Lets assume the change from dog-to-whale spans 20,000 observable morphological changes. It of course doesn't, it requires far far more changes than that, but lets just say.
Where are the other 19,995 changes the fossil record should show?
We should have thousands of fossil samples that show the gradual morphological development, yet wherever science digs they only find 5.
And those 5 don't even look like each other, the morphological changes that took place in between them are absolutely massive allegedly spanning millions of years.
Yet, even though billions of individuals lived during that time span, the fossil record is utterly lacking of any evidence of such intermediates.
Compared to that you can walk into any Giant Redwood forest and see thousands Giant Redwood trees in different stages of their development around you.
There is an abundant living record of growth stages from seedling to maturity.
Totally unlike your claim of billions of individuals in millions of inter-special morphological stages with only 5! alleged intermediates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0f4URsDWy0
A good watch concerning evidence supporting young earth. Not conjecture about the past, observable evidence from recent history.
A) Nobody has claimed that "we can't know anything we haven't seen happen".
(Barbarian checks)
You wrote:
"NO-ONE has seen a dog come from a non-dog"
As you now see, the idea that we can't know anything we didn't see directly, is a faulty one.
You know as well as I do that your argument of a small Giant Redwood growing into a large Giant Redwood stands in no comparison to millions of years of morphological evolution
If your argument fails for something only a few thousand years old, then of course, it's even more faulty for things millions of years old.
of which only a handful of alleged intermediaries are found.
That's a testable assumption. How many do you think there are? I'll be asking again if you forget to answer.
Let me ask you a question.
The ancestral tree of whales go back to a dog-like land animal some 50 million years ago.
Nope. You're wrong already.
Can you give me a number of morphological changes that should have taken place from dog-to-whale?
Canids could not have give rise to whales. For one thing, they are genetically not close at all. And whales have an ungulate digestive system that no canid ever had. One reason this is so hard for you, is that you don't really know much about the phylogenies of mammals. How about doing a little reading and then picking this up?
We are talking a complete change of internal organs and a complete change of external features.
Less than you imagine. For example, modern whales still have the primitive ungulate digestive system. Still have hair (albeit reduced), still have the lungs, even though gills would serve them better and so on.
Let's see what we would expect to see if a mammal evolved from a quadruped to a whale:
- Movement of nostrils from the front of the face to top of head.
- Reduction or elimination of hind limbs.
- General increase in size.
- Ability to give birth in water, meaning young should be able to move about immediately.
- Ability to hear well under waster.
These are true for all whales. There are some others that are true for some whales, but not all. Feel free to list any others, and we can talk about them.
Then we can look at the large number of fossil whales and see if they show a progression in that sort of change. But forget about dogs. You were misled about that.
Compared to that you can walk into any Giant Redwood forest and see thousands Giant Redwood trees in different stages of their development around you.
There is an abundant living record of growth stages from seedling to maturity.
So, if we can find a large number of fossil whale skulls, showing a progression in say, the location of the blow-hole, then we could conclude that the changed happened over time.
Great. We'll take a look at that in a bit. Meantime, let me know how many fossil whales have been found. Then we'll go on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0f4URsDWy0
A good watch concerning evidence supporting young earth. Not conjecture about the past, observable evidence from recent history.
Nope. I've been there, and the video has it completely wrong.
The erosion argument is laughable, since the soft sediment at Mt. St. Helens slumps and falls when a gulley gets more than about ten meters deep. There is no possible way that it could form vertical walls a kilometer high, as we see in some gradually eroded canyons.
(https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/915132-orig.jpg)
I got that far in before I realized that this was just an ignorant misrepresentation of the landscape there. If you think anything else therein is right, tell us about it and we can talk.
So you have taken the conclusive position that every possible fossil has been found, and no lager mammal, whale, giraffe or tree will ever be found.
I'm showing you that the trend for animals is in each lineage for them to get larger over time. This is true of everything from cats to elephants. Dinosaurs, for example, tended to be larger as time went on. It's exactly the opposite of what your source said.
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 28, 2017 - 15:28:10
(Barbarian checks)
You wrote:
"NO-ONE has seen a dog come from a non-dog"
As you now see, the idea that we can't know anything we didn't see directly, is a faulty one.
If your argument fails for something only a few thousand years old, then of course, it's even more faulty for things millions of years old.
That's a testable assumption. How many do you think there are? I'll be asking again if you forget to answer.
Nope. You're wrong already.
Canids could not have give rise to whales. For one thing, they are genetically not close at all. And whales have an ungulate digestive system that no canid ever had. One reason this is so hard for you, is that you don't really know much about the phylogenies of mammals. How about doing a little reading and then picking this up?
Less than you imagine. For example, modern whales still have the primitive ungulate digestive system. Still have hair (albeit reduced), still have the lungs, even though gills would serve them better and so on.
Let's see what we would expect to see if a mammal evolved from a quadruped to a whale:
- Movement of nostrils from the front of the face to top of head.
- Reduction or elimination of hind limbs.
- General increase in size.
- Ability to give birth in water, meaning young should be able to move about immediately.
- Ability to hear well under waster.
These are true for all whales. There are some others that are true for some whales, but not all. Feel free to list any others, and we can talk about them.
Then we can look at the large number of fossil whales and see if they show a progression in that sort of change. But forget about dogs. You were misled about that.
So, if we can find a large number of fossil whale skulls, showing a progression in say, the location of the blow-hole, then we could conclude that the changed happened over time.
Great. We'll take a look at that in a bit. Meantime, let me know how many fossil whales have been found. Then we'll go on.
Barbarian,
Your nitpicking over irrelevant issues shows that you do not really have an answer for the questions presented to you.
That no-one has seen a dog coming from a non-dog is factual and true.
How that in your mind turns into the claim "we cannot know anything if we didn't see directly" is a twist of the statement made.
Your counterclaim that no-one has ever seen a Giant Redwood coming from it's seed is completely false.
Giant Redwoods can be seen coming from seeds everywhere. Just put a seed in the ground, wait for a while and voila.....out comes the Giant Redwood tree.
In the beginning it is just a small sprout, but it is already a Giant Redwood tree. And then it grows bigger and bigger.
And all that time it remains a Giant Redwood tree, it just grows older and larger. It does not turn into another tree...it is and remains the same tree.
That same kind of nitpicking you display in your response: "Canids could not have give rise to whales".
That would be a proper response if not for the fact that I stated: "The ancestral tree of whales go back to a
dog-like land animal some 50 million years ago."
But since you are lacking a substantial response, you try to steer around the question by attacking it's formulation.
Just shows how inadequate your position is.
Finally the list of morphological changes is a joke, and I am sure you yourself realize that.
You are seriously proposing that the process of evolving a dog-like animal into a whale can be accomplished in five!!! steps?
I invite you to propose this to your evolutionist colleagues. You will be the laughing stock of the evolutionist society.
The evolution from dog-to-whale would involve hundreds of thousands, verifiable, physical changes. Every fiber of the animal, right upto it's cellular operation needs to be revised.
And it would span hundreds of thousands of generations.
Guess how many intermediates science is presenting to us? FIVE!!! And those five do not even show the morphological changes you propose!
Anyway, posting you these questions without getting an intelligible response is a waste of time. I am getting bored so I am out.
Your nitpicking over irrelevant issues shows that you do not really have an answer for the questions presented to you.
I just showed you how absurd that video was to make claims about the erosion at Mt. St. Helens. There's a huge difference between erosion of soft ash that collapses after a few meters of erosion, and a kilometer-high cut in solid rock.
That no-one has seen a dog coming from a non-dog is factual and true.
That no one has ever seen a giant redwood grow to maturity from a seed is also factual and true. The difference is, you are willing to infer from evidence that the latter happened, but are unwilling to infer from evidence that the former happened.
How that in your mind turns into the claim "we cannot know anything if we didn't see directly" is a twist of the statement made.
It appears you are willing to admit we can know some things, as long as they don't challenge your beliefs.
Giant Redwoods can be seen coming from seeds everywhere. Just put a seed in the ground, wait for a while and voila.....out comes the Giant Redwood tree.
No one has ever seen a giant redwood grow to maturity from a seed. Seedlings, yes. But not a giant redwood.
You're assuming that the big trees are just seedlings plus lots of time. But you've never seen it happen, so you have to infer from evidence that it does. As you do for the evolution of dogs. It's just that redwoods don't challenge your new beliefs.
That same kind of nitpicking you display in your response: "Canids could not have give rise to whales".
It's just a fact. You aren't going to get an ungulate digestive system from a canid digestive system.
You've assumed something that is just not possible. Whales are genetically closest to ungulates, to perissodactyl ungulates.
Finally the list of morphological changes is a joke, and I am sure you yourself realize that.
I notice that you were unable to show any other changes necessary to produce a whale from a land mammal. Some whales have additional adaptations, but I would like to see you add one more that all whales have.
You are seriously proposing that the process of evolving a dog-like animal into a whale can be accomplished in five!!! steps?
Remember, your assumption of a "dog-like animal" is false. But it's clear that there were many steps for each of these. Would you like to see the transitionals for one of those features?
I invite you to propose this to your evolutionist colleagues. You will be the laughing stock of the evolutionist society.
You've assumed that each characteristic had to have evolved instantly in full form. That's not what the evidence shows.
The evolution from dog-to-whale would involve hundreds of thousands, verifiable, physical changes.
I notice, though, that you couldn't think of even one more than I showed you. So it doesn't seem very likely.
And it would span hundreds of thousands of generations.
Well, that's not a problem. One of the oldest known whales lived about 48 million years ago. So let's say a whale lives 50 years. About 960,000 generations.
Guess how many intermediates science is presenting to us? FIVE!!!
You've been misled about that, too. Did they really tell you that there were only five known whale transitional forms?
And those five do not even show the morphological changes you propose!
Well, let's take a look at the blowhole...
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/9RKdNjW_94WHpWEVVWHcEhFBfq23U6l5kWrSU--_YLTJ_7YG2xHSMitYGpu8qYQlJ6DWhDmkihIvK5ClhdmmxMyLeQL7rgV9xlrQpXFrNi6y2DITrgvmYMbuInQUu8Cc5w=s0-d)
And there it is. A transition from the normal mammalian form to that of whales. In reality, there were more transitional forms than that, but you see here exactly what you claimed was impossible.
I am getting bored so I am out.
Learn a little about transitional whales, and come on back. We'll talk about it.
Barb,
You are and have been all wet for so long you stink. The man presented you with credible evidence and you reply with innuendo and BS. That is such a lame reply filled with bluster and then you wonder why people will not turn on the Word of God and fellowship with you. I know you hate Trump for being a narcissist but that is because, in a lessor, manor you exhibit the same symptoms when you try to teach tis heresy, insisting we are ignorant when we have not believed as you do. Sad!
Barb,
You are and have been all wet for so long you stink.
I just deflated some of the frauds they sold him.
The man presented you with credible evidence and you reply with innuendo and BS.
For example, let's look at the Mt. St. Helens video he told us to watch. First thing off, they tried recycling the old "erosion" scam. I've actually been there Bill, so I know they weren't telling the truth. The erosion there is nothing like the erosion that formed the Grand Canyon and Snake rivers. Would you like me to show you in some more detail?
I know you hate Trump for being a narcissist
Bill, you should never hate anyone. It erodes your soul. Trump isn't evil; he's weak. If he is narcissistic as you say, that's a character flaw, not wickedness. And it could be all showmanship for all I know.
but that is because, in a lessor, manor you exhibit the same symptoms when you try to teach tis heresy
Neither Young Earth creationism nor orthodox Christianity are heresies. God doesn't care how you think He created things. And it won't cause you to lose your soul unless you make an idol of creationism or science.
insisting we are ignorant
As you see, this one was not aware of a lot of things he thought he understood. We're all ignorant in some ways. He just happens to be ignorant about biology.
All of that, thoughtless, conjecture is answered with the answer of a single question, If there was darkness and there was light on five or six of the days, how much time has expired.
4.3 billion years ::smile::
: Alan Thu Aug 31, 2017 - 18:09:23
4.3 billion years ::smile::
God knows, but scientists don't, you don't, and I don't.
It's true that God didn't tell us how much time elapsed before man was here. But He did leave evidence for us to learn about it. Which is why we know it's about 4.3 billion years.
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 31, 2017 - 22:45:36
It's true that God didn't tell us how much time elapsed before man was here. But He did leave evidence for us to learn about it. Which is why we know it's about 4.3 billion years.
You have faith in scientists is your actual answer.
There are two fundamental revelations from God. They are the general revelation and the special revelation. The general revelation is that which can be known from His creation. The special revelation is that which can be known from His written word. The believer must have eyes and ears open for both.
All emphasis in the following is mine.
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.
Gen 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God's word conclusively states that creation took six literal days, even defining the parameters of what we know to be a literal 24 hour day including evening and morning. The latter He pronounced at the end of each day even before there was a sun and moon and means of morning and night as we know them, in order to clearly define and express the exact time involved in the process. He then conclusively stated in His fourth commandment these very truths again to be remembered by all every seventh day in order to establish and maintain proper relation between the Creator and the created. Only those willingly ignorant of God's word, or in rebellion against it's plain testimony deny these most obvious truths. They demonstrate their faith in the observations of fallen humanity above and over faith in the word of God.
#
: The Barbarian Mon Aug 28, 2017 - 15:35:40
Nope. I've been there, and the video has it completely wrong.
The erosion argument is laughable, since the soft sediment at Mt. St. Helens slumps and falls when a gulley gets more than about ten meters deep. There is no possible way that it could form vertical walls a kilometer high, as we see in some gradually eroded canyons.
(https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/915132-orig.jpg)
I got that far in before I realized that this was just an ignorant misrepresentation of the landscape there. If you think anything else therein is right, tell us about it and we can talk.
Your observations are not superior to theirs in any way shape or form, save in your own mind. Mt. St Helen is an extremely tiny scale event to examine in relation to the far greater global flood event recorded in the bible. Their observations are certainly tenable and in accordance with faith in God's word. Your observations are far less tenable with all things being considered, and based upon faith in the observations of fallen humanity, in direct contradiction to the word of God. Your are in a state of rebellion against the plain testimony of God's word. His word is wrong, and yours is right, because you've been there and agree with faulty observations of fallen humanity over the testimony of God's word. You have chosen whom you serve.
all emphasis in following quotes is mine.
http://www.brookebassi.com/greenlands-rapid-melt-uncovers-ancient-valleys/
The ancient basin beneath the ice
Geophysicists recently discovered evidence of an ancient drainage network buried beneath Greenland's ice sheet.
Satellite images confirm the vast network once extended across nearly a fifth of its total surface and experts found some of the channels within this system were about a mile deep and over seven miles wide.
The find covers an area comparable in size to the Ohio River Basin, which is the largest tributary of the Mississippi, and covers one fifth of Greenland.
Easily identified as remnants of the global flood, for those who care to acknowledge God's word above and over the observations of fallen humanity.
https://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html
Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.
Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.
"The stumps were in very good condition, sometimes with bark preserved," said Koch, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Koch will present his results on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver.
The pristine condition of the wood, he said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location.....................................
"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."
All the facts pointing to unnatural rapid destruction, preservation, and burial by ice and snow rapidly deposited after a global flood is in the above statement. It is an obvious and logical conclusion regarding the evidence. It is however not even considered by the agenda driven science of fallen humanity. To the contrary, the facts are broken up and splintered throughout the article to nullify there normal logical conclusion as much as possible.
http://greaterancestors.com/ancient-trees-more-than-twice-the-height-of-the-tallest-giant-redwoods/
Giant trees of the past, possibly indicating a larger earth and lower gravity. No surprise to those who believe the biblical account of creation and the flood.
Evolution is a lie.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be
100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will
prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution
will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory,
instead of a law.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.
: KiwiChristian Sun Sep 03, 2017 - 18:05:49
Evolution is a lie.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be
100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will
prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution
will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory,
instead of a law.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.
Nonsense, but somewhat entertaining nonetheless ::crackup::
: KiwiChristian Sun Sep 03, 2017 - 18:05:49
Evolution is a lie.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be
100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will
prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution
will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory,
instead of a law.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.
Indeed, evolution may be a lie. Although I do believe that evolution of species seems reasonable, I have seen no evidence that it actually occurs. I therefore have no good reason to believe that it does occur. But I promise to keep an open mind.
Your observations are not superior to theirs in any way shape or form
My evidence merely shows that their claims are false. There is no way you can build something like the grand canyon out of soft sediment. As you see, it just falls over after it gets a few meters high.
Mt. St Helen is an extremely tiny scale event to examine in relation to the far greater global flood event recorded in the bible.
It's a great example of the way you can fool yourself if you assume that big events are just small ones scaled up. The slumping problem is only the most obvious case.
Their observations are certainly tenable and in accordance with faith in God's word.
No, they are merely trying to re-interpret the world in accord with their new revision of God's word. Their attempts are untenable with all things being considered, and based upon faith in the new theologies of fallen humanity, in direct contradiction to the word of God. They are in a state of rebellion against the plain testimony of God's word.
Evolution is a lie.
It's directly observed. Even most creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species or higher taxa.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology.
Of course it's not. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things. If there was no predictive power in evolutionary theory, it would be merely a law.
A scientific law must be100% correct.
No. Kepler's Laws, for example, have slight errors due to relativistic effects.
Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will
prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution
will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory,
instead of a law.
No, you have that wrong. Laws are weaker things than theories. A law, like Kepler's law, predicts what scientists will see under specific circumstances. Newton's theory of gravitation began with Kepler's Laws, but derived the reason for those laws, and applied them to all mass in the Universe. A law predicts. A theory predicts and explains.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
It is the essential process in most evolution. It is the means by which fitness increases in a population. Would you like me to show you how?
Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.
Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if you could. Cats and dogs evolved from a common ancestor, which had some characteristics of both. Would you like to learn how we know that?
Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.
Most creationists now readily admit the fact of new species. They can hardly deny it, since it's been observed. Most of them now want to believe in a series of "bushes" of separated kinds, evolving new species, genera, and families. The problem for them is that DNA clearly shows one large bush, with all known living things fitting into it.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.
You're merely thinking you know better than God. The Inuit have evolved a number of adaptations to their environment, but being human, have largely modified the environment to make it liveable. Houses, warm water resistant clothing, and so on, have been more effective because evolution works over many generations and human ingenuity moves faster.
Likewise, the Tibetans evolved physiological changes to make it possible to live at high altitudes, because it wasn't feasible for them to build systems to help.
They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't.
They have their own adaptations. Dark skin to avoid damage from the sun. Where it's hot and dry, longer bodies and limbs to make evaporative cooling more efficient. Sweating. And so on.
They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
No. Loss of hair (which is a consequence of efficient sweating and cooling) means that a dark skin is selected for to minimize UV damage.
If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead
No, because they could not survive their until clothes were developed. After that, color if skin would be irrelevant. And that is what we see.
The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.
That's wrong, too. Because the supply of vitamin D is very limited in many northern locations, people evolve light skin to more efficiently produce vitamin D from sunlight. The Inuit don't have to worry about this, because their diet of seafood provides more vitamin D.
Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.
Do you notice that black people can get sunburned, but not nearly as easy as light-skinned people? And the people of India, are mostly Indo-Europeans, who migrated south into warmer places. Over time, these light-skinned invaders became darker by natural selection.
More later...
: The Barbarian Thu Aug 31, 2017 - 22:45:36
It's true that God didn't tell us how much time elapsed before man was here. But He did leave evidence for us to learn about it. Which is why we know it's about 4.3 billion years.
God may well be said to speak indirectly in creation, without the use of words, to man, but God speaks to man with words written out in scriptures. And these scriptures testify that God created man. How much time elapsed from today since He created man, that is Adam and Eve, can be easily determined, without need for science and a scientist, for God have written the generations starting from Adam, and have even given us how long man lived for each generation. And God told us about Adam, the first man of its kind, there ever was.
Now, scientist, by using scientific methods, thinking, and reasoning, have convinced themselves that man evolved. This, I am convinced, directly runs contrary to God's revelation in scriptures about the man He created. In scriptures, from the time God created Adam, do not speak of man evolving into the man of today. Man's intelligence evidently increased over time, but this is far from being considered evolution.
Only when man believes what scientists tell them, what they are, that is, an animal species, that man act, think, and lives like so. For the man then, as is with an animal and being an animal, is life nothing but being born and surviving?
I ask the scientist, can you figure out if animals have a knowledge of God? And further still, do all living things have a knowledge of their Creator?
I ask the Christian scientist who believe in the evolution of man, of all that God created that have life and have evolved, for what reason do you say God created them?
: 4WD Fri Sep 01, 2017 - 12:25:19
There are two fundamental revelations from God. They are the general revelation and the special revelation. The general revelation is that which can be known from His creation. The special revelation is that which can be known from His written word. The believer must have eyes and ears open for both.
And we know that God have spoken in words, and now speaks, through scriptures. This being, so we don't have to guess and second guess on many things, such as that, God created all of creation. That He created man and when He created man. And this is not what, scientist, by using scientific methods, thinking, and reasoning, have convinced themselves to believe as the truth. This, I am convinced, directly runs contrary to God's revelation in scriptures about the man He created.
God may well be said to speak indirectly in creation, without the use of words, to man, but God speaks to man with words written out in scriptures.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And these scriptures testify that God created man. How much time elapsed from today since He created man, that is Adam and Eve, can be easily determined, without need for science and a scientist,
Many people have thought so, and come up with various figures. But He chose not to say how long. The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, not a science text.
Now, scientist, by using scientific methods, thinking, and reasoning, have convinced themselves that man evolved.
Yes, that is the evidence, and being consistent with scripture, it's clearly true.
Only when man believes what scientists tell them, what they are, that is, an animal species, that man act, think, and lives like so.
If you were right, then biologists and their children would be worse behaved than the average. And that's not the case. Scientists don't say we're merely animals. Most of us recognize that we are souls in a body. How that body evolved is not important.
For the man then, as is with an animal and being an animal, is life nothing but being born and surviving?
Even atheists generally don't say that.
I ask the scientist, can you figure out if animals have a knowledge of God?
What if they did? Would you cease to believe? Why does it matter to you?
And further still, do all living things have a knowledge of their Creator?
Since there are humans who demonstrably don't know their Creator, that's not true.
I ask the Christian scientist who believe in the evolution of man, of all that God created that have life and have evolved, for what reason do you say God created them?
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
God may well be said to speak indirectly in creation, without the use of words, to man, but God speaks to man with words written out in scriptures.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The invisible things of "him", that is, God, and not the invisible things of created things.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
And these scriptures testify that God created man. How much time elapsed from today since He created man, that is Adam and Eve, can be easily determined, without need for science and a scientist,
Many people have thought so, and come up with various figures. But He chose not to say how long. The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, not a science text.
Yes God did say how many years. But from Adam, to today, by the length of time each generation from Adam to us which God did tell us in His words in scriptures, it can be computed. Up to us if we believe what can be computed in what God has revealed through scriptures or believe what scientist have computed in what their theories suggest through their scientific work.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
Now, scientist, by using scientific methods, thinking, and reasoning, have convinced themselves that man evolved.
Yes, that is the evidence, and being consistent with scripture, it's clearly true.
That's right, scientists have convinced themselves, by their works.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
Only when man believes what scientists tell them, what they are, that is, an animal species, that man act, think, and lives like so.
If you were right, then biologists and their children would be worse behaved than the average. And that's not the case. Scientists don't say we're merely animals. Most of us recognize that we are souls in a body. How that body evolved is not important.
Scientist say we are animals of the human species ~ man. And you, as far as I understand what you say here, say that humans then, are souls in an animal body or flesh. Now, if we take away the soul, that will leave an animal body. And this body is what scientists take as to be the man ~ the human species. Is this not what you believe, hold, and teach? Perhaps you can tell us what a soul is then.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
For the man then, as is with an animal and being an animal, is life nothing but being born and surviving?
Even atheists generally don't say that.
So, can you tell me what atheist say what man is, and what life is for man?
Can you tell me what the scientist who believes in the evolution of man say what man is and what life is for man?
Can you tell me what the Christian scientist who believes in the evolution of man say what man is and what life is for man?
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
I ask the scientist, can you figure out if animals have a knowledge of God?
What if they did? Would you cease to believe? Why does it matter to you?
I'm simply asking what the scientist so far have figured out on this matter. If you don't have the answer, I of course understand the obvious reason.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
And further still, do all living things have a knowledge of their Creator?
Since there are humans who demonstrably don't know their Creator, that's not true.
So, according to you, it's not true that all living things have a knowledge of their Creator. Thank you for a direct to the point answer, though it looks like is limited only to the human species. How about the rest?
And with regards with what you say of the humans, which you say demonstrably don't know their Creator, how then do you interpret the ff:
Romans 1:20-21 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that
they are without excuse because, although
they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 07, 2017 - 21:17:30
Michael said...
I ask the Christian scientist who believe in the evolution of man, of all that God created that have life and have evolved, for what reason do you say God created them?
No comment? Not so much as a scientist, but as a Christian.
Your observations are not superior to theirs in any way shape or form
My evidence merely shows that their claims are false. There is no way you can build something like the grand canyon out of soft sediment. As you see, it just falls over after it gets a few meters high.
I understand, that your closed mind reduces your ability to see or allow for comprehension of the big picture, or even listen to and hear what is actually being said. Nevertheless, there is a big picture, and the truth and or probability of better explanations than your own, will not go away because you choose to close your mind to them. This you do in rejection of the plain and conclusive testimony of scripture and even Jesus Christ Himself, while professing Christ as your Lord at the same time. ?
Mt St Helen is proof positive of rapid destruction, redistribution, formation, and recovery of the earths crust and the life and ecosystems sustained within it. This is proof positive that a global event of far greater magnitude as described in scripture can and most definitely would produce far more extreme results on a much grander scale which would include all of the biospheres of the same. You choose the "scientific" observations of fallen humanity who reject the word of God, over the scientific observation which incorporates the same and answers many problems with fallen humanities faulty perceptions.
This is the faith you choose. It absolutely is not a superior observation of cause and effect. To the contrary, real substantiated and verifiable science is casting greater and greater doubt upon these faulty observations as time moves forward. Please, do not let pride be your fall. Admit this error, and return to faith in God's word above faith in the word of fallen humanity. Stop obscuring and mystifying the plain testimony of scripture in order to make it more compatible with the faulty observations of fallen humanity.
As far as your faulty reasoning concerning soft sediment, how soft do you think the terrain in said area will be in a thousand years? It will not be soft. Some soft terrain will harden over time, some will be changed again, water and erosion will remove that which is soft. Apart from this, creationists do not believe the Grand Canyon was formed by soft sediment of ash and or re-formation of the earths crust due to volcanic activity. It is likely the result of the destructive power of cavitation on a massive scale resulting from the global flood described in scripture. Which cavitation would be far more destructive to softer sediments which had been recently laid down by rapid processes. Which the even layers of strata in the grand canyon suggest, having obviously not been subjected to the erosion of countless millions of years. All of which you of course reject as true. Nevertheless, the extremely destructive force of cavitation caused by massive movements of water is real, observable, verifiable, and documented scientific observation. You simply place your faith in the observations of fallen humanity who reject the testimony of scripture, and require unobservable millions of years for its formation. This over the real, observable, verifiable, and documented scientific information which easily explains the same far more in line with scriptural testimony. That is all. Your faith is misplaced.
Mt. St Helen is an extremely tiny scale event to examine in relation to the far greater global flood event recorded in the bible.
It's a great example of the way you can fool yourself if you assume that big events are just small ones scaled up. The slumping problem is only the most obvious case.
BALONEY! The problem exists only in your head, because you reject the plain testimony of scripture in favor of the faulty observations of fallen humanity. The eruption under examination completely altered the face of the earth around it. It destroyed all plant and animal life within the same. Wiped out entire forests leaving nothing but their stumps, stripping the trees of their branches and heaping them together in the near by lake. Plant and animal life being buried all over the place instantly by the displaced mountain, flowing lava, and tidal wave effect upon lakes also. We find evidence of the same all over the earth. Most of the fossils themselves being preserved by rapid burial involving large quantities of water and mud to do so. You are simply in total denial of the biblical account of the flood, in favor of the observations the godless and those who refuse God's word.
Their observations are certainly tenable and in accordance with faith in God's word.
No, they are merely trying to re-interpret the world in accord with their new revision of God's word. Their attempts are untenable with all things being considered, and based upon faith in the new theologies of fallen humanity, in direct contradiction to the word of God. They are in a state of rebellion against the plain testimony of God's word.
Yet you and they cannot even begin to explain that plain testimony according to your own twisted reasoning. Here we are, explain evolution and countless millions of years of the process according to the creation and flood accounts of scripture. Our explanation is simple, they mean what they plainly say. Come now thou prophet of God, enlighten us, and reveal the true meaning of these scriptures. Show us how they mean what you profess, rather than what they simply state. Show us the prophets and expounders of old who explained these things as well. Show us how the bible meaning what it says regarding the creation and flood are a new revision please.
God may well be said to speak indirectly in creation, without the use of words, to man, but God speaks to man with words written out in scriptures.
God disagrees:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
The invisible things of "him", that is, God, and not the invisible things of created things.
He speaks to us in creation, as St. Paul writes.
Barbarian observes:
Many people have thought so, and come up with various figures. But He chose not to say how long. The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, not a science text.
Yes God did say how many years.
No. Depending on your assumptions, you can play with numbers to get some kind of sum, but it isn't God's statement about how long it's been.
Barbarian observes:
Yes, that is the evidence, and being consistent with scripture, it's clearly true.
That's right, scientists have convinced themselves, by their works.
No. By His works.
Only when man believes what scientists tell them, what they are, that is, an animal species, that man act, think, and lives like so.
If you were right, then biologists and their children would be worse behaved than the average. And that's not the case. Scientists don't say we're merely animals. Most of us recognize that we are souls in a body. How that body evolved is not important.
Scientist say we are animals of the human species ~ man.
Right. But what you are missing is that we are not merely animals. We have a body, but we are souls.
And you, as far as I understand what you say here, say that humans then, are souls in an animal body or flesh.
So He says. I believe Him.
Now, if we take away the soul, that will leave an animal body.
How do you propose to do that? We are not merely an epiphenomenon of a body. We are something quite different, because God directly gives us a soul which is what we really are.
And this body is what scientists take as to be the man ~ the human species. Is this not what you believe, hold, and teach? Perhaps you can tell us what a soul is then.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
For the man then, as is with an animal and being an animal, is life nothing but being born and surviving?
Barbarian observes:
Even atheists generally don't say that.
So, can you tell me what atheist say what man is, and what life is for man?
Depends on the atheist, I suppose. But my experience is that most of them would not agree with your statement.
Can you tell me what the scientist who believes in the evolution of man
You don't "believe in" evolution. One accepts it or rejects it on the evidence.
I ask the scientist, can you figure out if animals have a knowledge of God?
Barbarian asks:
What if they did? Would you cease to believe? Why does it matter to you?
The one thing I notice is that scientists who work with apes who have learned to sign, are unanimous in saying that they would never tell those apes that they would someday die. Make of that what you will.
I'm simply asking what the scientist so far have figured out on this matter.
I suspect that they don't want to know that answer. What if a gorilla who had learned to sign, somehow learned about God, and believed? Then what? Scientists seem to avoid that. How would you tell a being with the intelligence of a preschooler, that they will die and just cease to exist? And are you absolutely sure that is the case?
And further still, do all living things have a knowledge of their Creator?
Barbarian observes:
Since there are humans who demonstrably don't know their Creator, that's not true.
So, according to you, it's not true that all living things have a knowledge of their Creator.
Obviously so, since we know at least some humans don't.
Thank you for a direct to the point answer, though it looks like is limited only to the human species.
None of us actually know that.
And with regards with what you say of the humans, which you say demonstrably don't know their Creator, how then do you interpret the ff:
Romans 1:20-21 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
It is called "invincible ignorance", and it is merely a fact of existence. You are confusing the idea that all men are made to yearn for God, with the idea that all mean know God. This is why all societies are religious. They see the evidence for God, but do not know Him.
I ask the Christian scientist who believe in the evolution of man
As you learned, one does not "believe in" evolution.
of all that God created that have life and have evolved, for what reason do you say God created them?
For example, why did God make tapeworms? That kind of thing? He chose not to tell us, but there's no end of speculation by those who are unhappy with his decision.
Barbarian observes:
My evidence merely shows that their claims are false. There is no way you can build something like the grand canyon out of soft sediment. As you see, it just falls over after it gets a few meters high.
I understand, that your closed mind reduces your ability to see or allow for comprehension of the big picture, or even listen to and hear what is actually being said.
When something is clearly false, there's no "big picture" that will make it true. It's just false.
Nevertheless, there is a big picture, and the truth and or probability of better explanations than your own, will not go away because you choose to close your mind to them.
Sorry, there's no way to move the facts around to make that story work. It's very simple. The soft sediment only erodes so far before it collapses. It could never form something like the walls of the grand canyon.
This you do in rejection of the plain and conclusive testimony of scripture and even Jesus Christ Himself,
Jesus never said anything like that. I'm merely noting that these guys who added their new ideas to scripture are fallible humans beings who are dissatisfied with the Bible as it is, while professing Christ as their Lord at the same time. ?
Mt St Helen is proof positive of rapid destruction, redistribution, formation, and recovery of the earths crust and the life and ecosystems sustained within it.
No question about that. I've walked those ridges and valleys; the destruction was over a decade old when I was there, and it was still impressive. But it's not a model for the Grand Canyon or the Snake River canyon, as those guys claimed. They formed by entirely different means. Would you like to learn how we know?
This is proof positive that a global event of far greater magnitude as described in scripture
Actually, scripture doesn't mention a global event like Mt. St. Helens. This is the faith you choose. It is merely the attempt by prideful humans to adjust God's word to their liking.
[quote[As far as your faulty reasoning concerning soft sediment, how soft do you think the terrain in said area will be in a thousand years?[/quote]
It will harden and then be much more difficult to erode. If, in millions of years, the area undergoes uplift, a river would cut gradually deeper and deeper into the rock. Most rivers meander, because old rivers tend to move slowly in almost level ground. Uplift rejuvenates rivers and traps them in their beds, making the valley steep and very deep.
Apart from this, creationists do not believe the Grand Canyon was formed by soft sediment of ash and or re-formation of the earths crust due to volcanic activity.
Then the Mt. St. Helens story is a bit of a fraud.
It is likely the result of the destructive power of cavitation on a massive scale resulting from the global flood described in scripture.
No chance of that. The sort of entrenched meanders we see in steep canyons would be destroyed by massive violent erosion. Do you understand what "cavitation" means?
(http://www.jimsadventures.com/GrandCanyon2007/EntrenchedMeander.jpg)
As you see, water motion sufficient to gouge out kilometer-deep canyons in rock over a year's time, would have simply ripped through those goosenecks.
And perhaps the most damaging fact of all is that these sediments, which creationists claim were laid down in the "flood year", contain buried forests and deserts in the columns of sediment. How do forests and deserts appear in the middle of a flood?
Your faith is misplaced.
Barbarian observes:
My evidence merely shows that their claims are false. There is no way you can build something like the grand canyon out of soft sediment. As you see, it just falls over after it gets a few meters high.
As is obvious, you did not even read my post with enough attention span to actually see what it was saying, or you simply refuse to acknowledge and address those whose views you disagree with. Comparisons between rapid layering at Mt St Helen and Grand Canyon do necessarily suggest or imply common causality. To the contrary, there was a great deal more involved in the global flood scenario than Mt St Helen. Nor do the destructive forces of scientifically proved rapid erosion due to cavitation, require soft sediment or millions of years. You simply refuse and or ignore the application of proved observable scientific data because it does not fit the faith which you have chosen, in contradiction to faith in God's word.
I understand, that your closed mind reduces your ability to see or allow for comprehension of the big picture, or even listen to and hear what is actually being said.
When something is clearly false, there's no "big picture" that will make it true. It's just false.
Nothing is true or false simply because you say so. You prefer the conjecture of unobservable theory concerning countless millions of years, in like mind with many an atheist, to observable and applicable scientific data which fully support the biblical account of creation and the flood. Both of which you reject and or mystify beyond understanding, save your own testimony concerning their inaccuracy or unexplainable meaning. Thank you though, for admitting that you believe large portions of scripture to be false. Not just false, but hopelessly false. I suppose this is why you will never even try to explain the creation account or flood account according to your own understanding, you consider them to be hopelessly false.
Nevertheless, there is a big picture, and the truth and or probability of better explanations than your own, will not go away because you choose to close your mind to them.
Sorry, there's no way to move the facts around to make that story work. It's very simple. The soft sediment only erodes so far before it collapses. It could never form something like the walls of the grand canyon.
Same dreary moot point. I do understand your need though, to cling to this one point. You basically created it yourself, and refuse any testimony, evidence, or even parameters outside of it. In this manner, you maintain control over the point, though doing so in fact makes the point moot for any but those manipulated by the parameters and ignorance you demand for any willing to accept them. I am not in your box, thus your point is most obviously meaningless.
This you do in rejection of the plain and conclusive testimony of scripture and even Jesus Christ Himself,
Jesus never said anything like that. I'm merely noting that these guys who added their new ideas to scripture are fallible humans beings who are dissatisfied with the Bible as it is, while professing Christ as their Lord at the same time. ?
Yet again though, you are the one who cannot show anything anywhere in scripture that teaches or even hints at what you profess. Not without making its meaning symbolic of that which you have chosen to believe, or discarding its testimony altogether if it contradicts your understanding. Thus yo will not even acknowledge the flood account, which is a fairly large portion of scripture, which is acknowledged by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself in the scriptures. Which scriptures have been supplied several times over on this very thread. Sorry, I'm afraid you cannot turn this one around with any real substance of conviction. You are once again, simply in denial of evidence that exists right before you, in relation to the word of God rather than proved, observable, and applicable science. You are of course free to do supply us with testimony from the prophets, apostles, or the Lord Himself where they deny the flood as you do. Please do.
Mt St Helen is proof positive of rapid destruction, redistribution, formation, and recovery of the earths crust and the life and ecosystems sustained within it.
No question about that. I've walked those ridges and valleys; the destruction was over a decade old when I was there, and it was still impressive. But it's not a model for the Grand Canyon or the Snake River canyon, as those guys claimed. They formed by entirely different means. Would you like to learn how we know?
Again, your accusations are false, and only exist within the parameters of debate restricted to your own chosen faith and or ignorance. The suggestion that the rapid layering which occurred at Mt St Helen is evidence that similar processes due to catastrophic events may easily explain the same layering in the Grand Canyon, in no way shape or form implies that creationists believe these processes were identical. This false pretense exists and is only demanded in and by your delusional mind. Creationists know the formation of the outer crust of our earth, and even components of inner earth itself, were drastically altered by far more than just volcanic eruption. To the contrary, as biblical testimony implies, the existing planet was reformed by supernatural change of both functionality and structure contributing to and facilitating global catastrophe. We are not inside your self imposed box.
This is proof positive that a global event of far greater magnitude as described in scripture
Actually, scripture doesn't mention a global event like Mt. St. Helens. This is the faith you choose. It is merely the attempt by prideful humans to adjust God's word to their liking.
More of the same delusional nonsense. Neither the video under debate, nor any creationists, believe the bible depicts a global volcanic catastrophic event. This is again only according to your self imposed parameters which you wish to impose upon others. These parameters however, only exist in your delusional mind and most certainly do not apply to anyone who cares not for them.
As far as your faulty reasoning concerning soft sediment, how soft do you think the terrain in said area will be in a thousand years?
It will harden and then be much more difficult to erode. If, in millions of years, the area undergoes uplift, a river would cut gradually deeper and deeper into the rock. Most rivers meander, because old rivers tend to move slowly in almost level ground. Uplift rejuvenates rivers and traps them in their beds, making the valley steep and very deep.
Millions of years for erosion are only necessary to those who refuse documented, observable, verifiable, scientifically established facts concerning several different factors which may bring about the same in rapid sequence. This is what you cling to, to continue support for your faith. That which the scriptures testify happened would unquestionably bring about those very factors, which you choose to ignore and disbelieve according to the faith which you yourself have chosen. Unfortunately for you, there is a serious lack of evidence of slow erosion in the various layers of strata we are discussing, which would unquestionably take place over the millions of years your faith demands. Which lack of evidence confirms rapid erosion more than slow erosion over ions of time. Which lack of evidence also creates a contradiction within your own faith. If it took millions of years for rivers to cause the erosion under debate, then the layers of strata revealed by that erosion should also display clear and distinct signs of natural erosion which would occur during those millions of years. They do not. You will of course no doubt ignore the same.
Apart from this, creationists do not believe the Grand Canyon was formed by soft sediment of ash and or re-formation of the earths crust due to volcanic activity.
Then the Mt. St. Helens story is a bit of a fraud.
Only the story which exists in your delusional mind alone. The one you created yourself, to be able to defend your ever increasingly un-defendable position. Again, this is the box of your own creation, not ours. We are not confined by it.
It is likely the result of the destructive power of cavitation on a massive scale resulting from the global flood described in scripture.
No chance of that. The sort of entrenched meanders we see in steep canyons would be destroyed by massive violent erosion. Do you understand what "cavitation" means?
You have no clue whatsoever what existed before the deluge which transformed this earth, let alone what would be left after it. Nor the effects of no doubt multiple erosions and redistributions of of the earths crust and everything in and on it during the flood described in scripture which you completely reject as truth. Pride alone makes you think you could possibly know this. You again expose your disdain for the word of God, declaring there is no chance at all that what the bible describes actually happened.
2 Tim 3:1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away....................
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Here you are fulfilling the above prophecy and denying verses 16 and 17 above, spoken by the apostle Paul. Is your testimony, and that of those you esteem and emulate, now above the words of this servant of God who composed so very much of the New Testament of God? Again, in your own mind only, apparently. Please do correct me if I am wrong, and correctly explain verses 16 &17 for us, if you will.
As you see, water motion sufficient to gouge out kilometer-deep canyons in rock over a year's time, would have simply ripped through those goosenecks.
More of the same. You have no idea whatsoever, what was there before the flood, or the many factors existing during the flood and its aftermath which could be responsible for the formation you presented for examination. If it was in fact formed during the flood rather than some lesser catastrophic event later. Your pride allows for you to declare it is not possible but by your own understanding. As I must repeatedly remind you, we are not restricted by the box of your own prideful creation.
The same factors that would contribute to such a formation over long periods of time, may also apply to its rapid formation. If you believe it came about slowly, explain the process and why it took the circuit it did. Will you say perhaps, the path of least resistance? Very well then, what prevents large quantities of water from following the path of least resistance in rapid succession as well. Does only slow moving water follow a path of least resistance? Perhaps the erosion moved along lines already existing and delineated in the earths crust. Perhaps the entire thing transpired under water itself already, the counter active turbulence of other waters flowing in opposite or parallel directions creating the unusual course.
There are underwater rivers right now in the oceans causing erosion in by the paths they take. The different salinities of the waters separating the same. During an event such as the global flood there would be a great many counteracting flows of water and waterways of many varying salinities due to the many different elements dissolved in and or debris carried along with them. Again, God alone knows the many different variables able to account for that which in your self aggrandizing mind, claim is impossible. I am not in your box.
You deny such could be produced as a result of the variables possible from a global flood, but have readily accepted incredible variables that could account for the preservation of dinosaur soft tissues, blood vessels, and cells for millions of years because it suits your faith. Or do you still deny this altogether. Even if you do, then you still accepted variables that allowed for petrification or whatever, to produce soft exact replicas of soft tissues, skin, bone, blood vessels and cells lasting millions of years. Many of these in locations or depths exposing them to the elements and thus the natural results and known factors of decay which will not allow for such. Again, your faith dictates your reasoning, and your faith is not in the word of God.
And perhaps the most damaging fact of all is that these sediments, which creationists claim were laid down in the "flood year", contain buried forests and deserts in the columns of sediment. How do forests and deserts appear in the middle of a flood?
Your faith is misplaced.
A truly ignorant question. Once again not taking in at all, the depth and magnitude of the flood described in scripture. What is to be expected by those who have no faith in the same though? The existing columns were created by the flood.
http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column
The geological column is not strictly limited to evolutionary thought. Creationists devised it first, before 1860. They believed more in catastrophism than in the uniformitarianism that prevails today. It is largely assumed by creation scientists that the differential fossil layers are due to the varying times of death of the organisms that died during the global flood (see fossil sorting). Evolutionists have subsequently added the so-called "periods" and "eras" in order to effectively make the geologic timeline fit within the ever-more popular evolution.
Forests were trapped by the same, deserts were formed by the same. Your self imposed blinders prevent you from taking in the sheer magnitude of the event, and therefore also many details or events possible in relation to it.
I really get a kick out of people making fools of themselves here, the facts are simple and the evidence is all around us. It's like watching a trial where the evidence is stacked immeasurably in favour of the prosecution but the defense still insists innocence. Of course that's their job but it doesn't make it true.
What is it that makes people believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are deluded? What is their agenda if so? Is it a conspiracy theory? I just don't understand why some refuse to open their minds to the truth and stop denying the facts.
: Amo Fri Sep 01, 2017 - 13:49:40
All emphasis in the following is mine.
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.
Gen 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God's word conclusively states that creation took six literal days, even defining the parameters of what we know to be a literal 24 hour day including evening and morning. The latter He pronounced at the end of each day even before there was a sun and moon and means of morning and night as we know them, in order to clearly define and express the exact time involved in the process. He then conclusively stated in His fourth commandment these very truths again to be remembered by all every seventh day in order to establish and maintain proper relation between the Creator and the created. Only those willingly ignorant of God's word, or in rebellion against it's plain testimony deny these most obvious truths. They demonstrate their faith in the observations of fallen humanity above and over faith in the word of God.
You may be right, but not necessarily so. Understandably you have your own impressions, and your own understandings. But words are quite fluent, and can often suggest something we might never consider.
What is a day?
What is a morning?
And what is an evening?
It's a matter of perspective. We aren't the author, and therefore we do not necessarily have insider knowledge of the authors true intent when He used the words He used.
day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence
- the interval of light between two successive nights
- a time of light
Day - definition of Day by The Free Dictionary
My friends, "God is Light". When God is present, it is as day. When he is not, it is as night. While God is present and creating it is as day. When He steps back to consider what He has made, it is as night.
morning - The first or early part; the beginning
morning - definition of morning by The Free Dictionary
evening - A later period or time
evening - definition of evening by The Free Dictionary
Every time God was present it was day. When He was beginning His work for the day, it was morning. When He was finishing with His work for the day, it was evening. And God saw that it was good. "...And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)
But then again, as far as I know God may very well have created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days. There's very little God is not capable of doing.
: Sonofason Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 17:01:34
But then again, as far as I know God may very well have created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days. There's very little God is not capable of doing.
Thank you, I do not dispute the above statement. What i
do dispute is people attempting to "prove otherwise" the very facts that are evident today.
: Alan Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 14:44:19
I really get a kick out of people making fools of themselves here, the facts are simple and the evidence is all around us. It's like watching a trial where the evidence is stacked immeasurably in favour of the prosecution but the defense still insists innocence. Of course that's their job but it doesn't make it true.
What is it that makes people believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are deluded? What is their agenda if so? Is it a conspiracy theory? I just don't understand why some refuse to open their minds to the truth and stop denying the facts.
Truth and fact are also foolish words to use. It cannot possibly be verified that the earth is 4.3 Billion years old. Very likely in the future, say 100 years from now, scientists will have some other number that is based upon more evidence and new scientific breakthroughs that will shatter the current viewpoint.
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 20:02:05
Truth and fact are also foolish words to use. It cannot possibly be verified that the earth is 4.3 Billion years old. Very likely in the future, say 100 years from now, scientists will have some other number that is based upon more evidence and new scientific breakthroughs that will shatter the current viewpoint.
No argument there, scientific theories are open to new evidence that can alter previously thought evidence, the important thing to keep in mind here is that new evidence is gained by progression, continued observation and testing can certainly garner new results over a given time. That said, new data will never say that the earth is 10,000 years old.
: Alan Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 14:44:19
What is it that makes people believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are deluded? What is their agenda if so? Is it a conspiracy theory? I just don't understand why some refuse to open their minds to the truth and stop denying the facts.
It makes me think what is the agenda of men spoken of by Paul, in that all of them, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God? Did they conspire or what?
Romans 1:20-21
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
What is it that makes people believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are deluded?I guess it's just that they all have the same conviction, and convicted by the same spirit, as also those people who believe that 10's of thousands of scientists are not deluded, but are correct in their scientific works, observations, findings, theories, and conclusions, have the same conviction.
: Alan Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 23:19:48
No argument there, scientific theories are open to new evidence that can alter previously thought evidence, the important thing to keep in mind here is that new evidence is gained by progression, continued observation and testing can certainly garner new results over a given time. That said, new data will never say that the earth is 10,000 years old.
Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, said:
"Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."
So, perhaps you may be right in saying, "new data will never say that the earth is 10,000 years old".
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 09, 2017 - 20:02:05
Truth and fact are also foolish words to use. It cannot possibly be verified that the earth is 4.3 Billion years old. Very likely in the future, say 100 years from now, scientists will have some other number that is based upon more evidence and new scientific breakthroughs that will shatter the current viewpoint.
It cannot possibly be verified that George Washington actually lived. But we have considerable data available to us that says he did. And while we may not be able to verify that the earth is 4.3 billion years old, we have considerable data available to us to support it.
Truth and fact are also foolish words to use. It cannot possibly be verified that the earth is 4.3 Billion years old.
It can indeed be verified. And has been by several different methods.
Very likely in the future, say 100 years from now, scientists will have some other number that is based upon more evidence and new scientific breakthroughs that will shatter the current viewpoint.
Likely, it will get more accurate, but given the history of that science, it seems highly improbable the the current viewpoint will be dramatically changed. It's been measured in billions since Rutherford discovered radioactivity in the early 1900s. As we found older and older rocks, it ended up a little more than 4.5 billion years for the solar system and about 4.3 for the Earth itself.
https://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona
Earlier this year, a well-known geologist stood with a group of people at the rim of Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona, (figure 1) and declared that Noah's Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as Noah's Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. According to this professor of geology at a university in California, the winding course of the Colorado River indicates that the river had low energy and would have been flowing just above sea level at that time.
This professor, who has authored well-known books on geology, was absolutely sure that Noah's Flood could not explain the meandering loop. In his view, Noah's global Flood, as described in the Bible, never happened.
However, when we look a bit more carefully at the landscapes in the area, the evidence is very clear. The canyon was indeed carved by Noah's Flood. But to recognize that, you have to think big.
https://creation.com/ariel-roth-interview-flat-gaps
'An outstanding feature of erosion is the highly irregular surface (topography) it creates as streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys into the landscape. Even Australia, which tends to be very flat, has a lot of irregular topography in many areas. Erosion tends to produce highly irregular surfaces over most of our continents.'
But what do we find instead?
'The problem these flat gaps especially pose for the long geologic ages is the lack of erosion of the underlayer expected at these gaps. Over the many millions of years postulated for these gaps, you would expect pronounced irregular erosion, and the gaps should not at all be flat.
'In fact, according to average erosion rates, many or all of the layers should be gone. Since they are there and flat, this indicates that the millions of years postulated for these gaps never occurred. These flat gaps are so common (see the pictures at right and below for some examples), that they pretty much challenge the validity of the whole geologic time scale.'
I am really curious. If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
: 4WD Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 10:07:33
I am really curious. If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
Umm. the oceans?
You are assuming the oceans and continents we have today today were there before the flood.
: 4WD Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 10:07:33
I am really curious. If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
Flood Proofs
Pre-Cambrian void, then abundant, complex Cambrian fossils.
Pre-Cambrian rocks are the pre-Flood basement. Post-Cambrian rocks are the post-Flood fossil rich strata. Earliest Cambrian rocks (supposedly 500 million years old) contain highly complex, diversified animal fossils which suddenly appeared.
Question: How could this complex range of fauna evolve so suddenly and quickly?
This was as unexplainable to Darwin as it is to Evolutionists today.
Answer: Creationists easily explain this as the pre-Flood, post-Flood demarcation. The "2 billion year" geological column used to support the evolution of life, is actually a record of the destruction of life by the worldwide flood.
The geological column is a record of life's departure, not of life's coming. The geological column represents 2 or 3 months deposition not 2 billion years
Fossilisation. The existence of billions of plant and animal fossils preserved in the
earth's crust speaks of a flood catastrophe. The fossil record is not "incomplete" as
evolutionists argue, (incomplete only because it does not contain the links they need to
prove evolution), but is quantitatively huge, with a greater variety of species than are alive
today.
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
Question: Was this tree standing unweathered for millions of years while strata was slowly deposited all around it?
Answer: No! The sediment and tree were moved into place at the same time. Slow deposition of rock (uniformity)would not allow a tree to be fossilised before it would rot and fall over.
Simple to Complex by Flood Fossil Sorting.
We observe a general sorting of fossils from simple, spherical, dense sea creatures to
less dense, irregular shaped, complex creatures higher up.
a) Evolutionists interpret this to mean that simple creatures lower down evolved to
complex creatures higher up over time.
b) Creationists match these observations with the sorting effect produced by Noah's
Flood, as follows:
i) Initial effects of the Flood would be to trap smaller, simple, spherical, dense
sea creatures like trilobites in sediment.
ii) Then plants and trees, being immobile, would be swept off the earth and
deposited, becoming coal of today.
iii) Amphibians, living close to the water's edge and being relatively slow moving
would be deposited next.
iv) Reptiles and Dinosaurs living further inland and being relatively slow moving
(eg. brontosaurus) would be trapped next.
v) Land mammals and birds being faster-moving and living further inland would be
next deposited (eg. lions).
vi) Finally, man, being more intelligent at fleeing to higher ground would be the last
ones overcome by the Flood, and therefore appear on top of the rock strata. The
final effect would be simple organisms lower in the sediment to complex organisms higher up in the sediment, although contradictions to this order would be expected due to randomness of the flood action. This is precisely what we see as predicted by Noah's Flood.
Consider these fossil examples supporting the worldwide flood:
i) Coal and Oil Reserves even in polar regions can only be explained by thecatastrophic burial of billions of plants and animals. Coal (fossil plants) weredeposited by a water catastrophe, not by slow accumulation in swamps. Fossil trees extend through several layers of coal.
ii) Mammoths by the millions cover about 14% of the earth's surface from Siberia to Alaska, frozen so rapidly that their flesh is edible today.
iii) Fossil Dinosaur Bones.
• in Dinosaur National monument Utah contain over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs.
• in Geissseltal Germany, we find remains of 6000 fossil vertebrates.
iv) Closed Clams. We find millions of fossil closed clams in a 3 foot stratum in Texas. Clams do not live packed together like this. Clam shells will open unless buried before death.
v) Billions of fossilised fish, contorted in agony over 10,000 square miles, with 1000 fish in one square metre are found in England.
vi) Millions of fossil trilobites rolled into defensive balls, and although marine, are
found 7000 feet high on mountains.
vii) 800 billion fossils of amphibians, reptiles and fish covering 200,000 square miles in the Karoo formation of South Africa.
viii) Rain drops, ripple marks, worm trails, animal tracks, droppings, insect wing detail and feathers are fossilised.
ix) Sharks flattened to 1/4 inch thick with the tail still upright suggest sudden catastrophic burial.
x) Rhinoceroses, camels, pigs, etc. make up 9,000 fossil animals in one hill at Agate Springs, Nebraska.
xi) A 14 foot Portheus fish has swallowed a 6 foot Gillicus fish, with no signs of digestion.
xii) A Perch swallowing a Herring is caught in the action by very quick burial at fossil
lake Wyoming.
Flood Traditions.
Every ancient culture has a Flood tradition. A survey of 120 tribes in North, South and Central America found every one to have a flood tradition. A post- Flood population would carry Flood ideas with them as they scattered across the world.
Flood accounts of isolated groups would change over time, but the basic ideas of a
universal Flood, safety in a ship, with few people surviving would survive. Noah's ark
would have been almost impossible to capsize, having a length to width ratio of 6 to 1
(ie. 300:50 cubits).
: KiwiChristian Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 19:02:11
Umm. the oceans?
You are assuming the oceans and continents we have today today were there before the flood.
You're a couple hundred million years off base.
https://www.livescience.com/31910-north-america-geology-through-time.html
: KiwiChristian Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 19:02:11
Umm. the oceans?
You are assuming the oceans and continents we have today today were there before the flood.
I don't think you are seeing the picture quite as a global flood would be. If the entire earth is covered with water, there is no place for it to go. So I ask again, If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
However, when we look a bit more carefully at the landscapes in the area, the evidence is very clear. The canyon was indeed carved by Noah's Flood. But to recognize that, you have to think big.
"Thinking big" only makes the problem worse for creationists. The kind of flow that could carve out rock a kilometer deep in less than a year would never cut a meander. It would break right through the necks. You see, there's no magic in Newton's laws; even water works by physics. Water under tremendous force doesn't cut meandering traces.
And we have another Gish Gallop. Let's take a look...
Flood Proofs
Pre-Cambrian void, then abundant, complex Cambrian fossils.
I'm assuming you cut and pasted this. You should know that there is an extensive precambrian fossil complex. The Ediacaran biota includes many forms, including some that are also in the Cambrian.
Pre-Cambrian rocks are the pre-Flood basement. Post-Cambrian rocks are the post-Flood fossil rich strata. Earliest Cambrian rocks (supposedly 500 million years old) contain highly complex, diversified animal fossils which suddenly appeared.
Surprise. Complex living things predate the Cambrian. So there goes your Flood.
Question: How could this complex range of fauna evolve so suddenly and quickly?
The Cambrian is the first time that full-body armor is found. Before that, fossils were largely soft, perhaps with some hard parts. So the explosion of different forms seems to be a consequence of that.
This was as unexplainable to Darwin as it is to Evolutionists today.
Darwin didn't know of fossils that old. We have many, many of them now.
Answer: Creationists easily explain this as the pre-Flood, post-Flood demarcation. The "2 billion year" geological column used to support the evolution of life, is actually a record of the destruction of life by the worldwide flood.
So, by your own admission, the fossil record refutes creationism.
The geological column is a record of life's departure, not of life's coming. The geological column represents 2 or 3 months deposition not 2 billion years
Nope. For example, the strata in the Grand Canyon include layers with deserts and forests above one another. How does a desert turn into a forest in 2 or 3 months?
Fossilisation. The existence of billions of plant and animal fossils preserved in the earth's crust speaks of a flood catastrophe.
If you were right, there would be no desert fossils in the fossil record. But there are. As you can see, the fact of those deserts and fossils stacked on top of each other refute your assumptions.
The fossil record is not "incomplete" as evolutionists argue, (incomplete only because it does not contain the links they need to
prove evolution), but is quantitatively huge, with a greater variety of species than are alive
That's wrong too. When I was a young undergraduate, we had no fossils of whales with legs, feathered dinosaurs, other species of humans, transitions between fish and tetrapods, and so on. Today, we do. So reality overturns that objection.
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years,
Nope. You assume that deposits of sediment have to be slow. But they can be rapid. Polystrate trees are forming in a reservoir a few miles from my house, as woods flooded by a dam, are being buried by sediment over a period of decades.
that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
And now you know better.
Simple to Complex by Flood Fossil Sorting.
We observe a general sorting of fossils from simple, spherical, dense sea creatures to
less dense, irregular shaped, complex creatures higher up.
Nope. We see highly complex organisms like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Spriggina_flounensi_C.jpg/230px-Spriggina_flounensi_C.jpg)
Appearing in the Precambrian, while we see these simple one-celled organisms
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eLvl0BSs_bs/Vx-c5A6qQ7I/AAAAAAAAVyI/6VgSC-iwvpED3eNtR7UIJ9KW9gz8CMOGQCLcB/s1600/diatom.jpg)
in the Cretaceous.
a) Evolutionists interpret this to mean that simple creatures lower down evolved to
complex creatures higher up over time.
The very earliest organisms are simple bacteria. But complexity evolved rather rapidly.
b) Creationists match these observations with the sorting effect produced by Noah's
Flood, as follows:
i) Initial effects of the Flood would be to trap smaller, simple, spherical, dense
sea creatures like trilobites in sediment.
Trilobites weren't spherical. They were, many of them longer and slimmer than crabs, which don't show up in those layers.
ii) Then plants and trees, being immobile, would be swept off the earth and
deposited, becoming coal of today.
Hard to explain why low-land trees like oaks were fossilized later than mountain trees like pines. If your argument is correct, it refutes creationism.
iv) Reptiles and Dinosaurs living further inland and being relatively slow moving
(eg. brontosaurus) would be trapped next.
v) Land mammals and birds being faster-moving and living further inland would be
next deposited (eg. lions).
So the swift sloths just outran the slow velociraptors? You sure about that? (can you say "swift sloths" three times, real fast?)
i) Coal and Oil Reserves even in polar regions can only be explained by thecatastrophic burial of billions of plants and animals. Coal (fossil plants) weredeposited by a water catastrophe, not by slow accumulation in swamps. Fossil trees extend through several layers of coal.
Antarctica had a tropical climate at one time, as it was much farther north than it is today. Would you like to learn how we know?
ii) Mammoths by the millions cover about 14% of the earth's surface from Siberia to Alaska, frozen so rapidly that their flesh is edible today.
That does happen when there's an ice age. Why would that surprise you?
iii) Fossil Dinosaur Bones.
• in Dinosaur National monument Utah contain over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs.
In slightly higher strata, there are many mammals. why would that be a surprise?
• in Geissseltal Germany, we find remains of 6000 fossil vertebrates.
The Karoo formation contains many millions of them. Why is that a surprise? That would seem to refute your belief of a single flood. You see, if all these organisms lived at the same time, there would be so many living things, the earth could not support them.
Closed Clams. We find millions of fossil closed clams in a 3 foot stratum in Texas. Clams do not live packed together like this.
(http://ksoutdoors.com/var/news/storage/images/fishing/aquatic-nuisance-species/ans-gallery/zm_on_rod/470239-1-eng-US/zm_on_rod_gallery.jpg)
You didn't know this?
vi) Millions of fossil trilobites rolled into defensive balls, and although marine, are
found 7000 feet high on mountains.
Mt. Everest,for example, has countless such fossils. the Himalayas are made of continental shelf that rose above the sea as India pushed into Asia. The collision is still continuing; it's measurable, a few centimeters a year.
800 billion fossils of amphibians, reptiles and fish covering 200,000 square miles in the Karoo formation of South Africa.
As pointed out, the earth could never have supported all of them at once. You're working against yourself, here.
The fact that many different cultures have legends about floods could mean that there was once a worldwide flood, or it could mean that there have been many floods in different places over time. Given that there's no evidence for a worldwide flood, and we know that there have been many great floods in the past, the conclusion is obvious.
More later.
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/biggest-virus-ever-we-dont-understand-anything-anymore/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins/
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/did-giant-viruses-evolve-from-smaller-viruses/
Yes, that's right, devolution. Wake up, open your eyes and stop denying the obvious scientific data, willingly ignorant scientists. Things were bigger, better, and more complex. We have not been evolving, we have been devolving. The world itself was larger, all animal and plant life was larger, and now we see that even viruses were much larger and much more complex then, than now. Get a grip, and stop denying what is right in front of your faces to support your ever increasingly questionable agenda driven theory of evolution from simple to complex. It absolutely is not what the ever increasing data suggests. Come out of your modernly developed dark ages, and return to the light of the testimony of scripture. God created a world far superior to this existing one, just as scripture records. That world was destroyed by way of judgment, and this inferior one now awaits judgement again for denying exactly what the pre flood world denied as well, God and the testimony of His servants.
Ps 119:98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Come out of the darkness of your own understanding, and enter the light and revelation of God's word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I
A good one.
Ah, the old "if we didn't directly observe it, we can't know it" dodge. So we don't know if giant redwood trees grow from seeds, or if George Washington was president, or if the dog messed on the carpet, because we weren't around to see those things.
A creationist golden oldie.
'In fact, according to average erosion rates, many or all of the layers should be gone. Since they are there and flat, this indicates that the millions of years postulated for these gaps never occurred. These flat gaps are so common (see the pictures at right and below for some examples), that they pretty much challenge the validity of the whole geologic time scale.'
Many of the layers are gone in most places. The entire gelological column exists in a few places on Earth, but it's generally not complete in any one area, precisely because of erosion.
: 4WD Sun Sep 10, 2017 - 06:32:24
It cannot possibly be verified that George Washington actually lived. But we have considerable data available to us that says he did. And while we may not be able to verify that the earth is 4.3 billion years old, we have considerable data available to us to support it.
We also have the Truth in the clear Word of God that proves our faith is valid and that without faith in what God has spoken through his agents we will not be saved. (Heb. 11:6)
: th1b.taylor Fri Sep 22, 2017 - 11:03:32
We also have the Truth in the clear Word of God that proves our faith is valid and that without faith in what God has spoken through his agents we will not be saved. (Heb. 11:6)
Your version is not the "clear word of God" that you assert, it is your interpretation.
The clear word of God is in the Bible and in the full human and full God of His one and only Son Jesus. The Christ, Lord, and Savior of the heaven and universe.
: 4WD Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 19:52:15
I don't think you are seeing the picture quite as a global flood would be. If the entire earth is covered with water, there is no place for it to go. So I ask again, If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
Where do all flood waters run back to, after the event which propelled them to destructive levels has ended? After the entire surface of the earth was reshaped by the flood, the waters receded again to lower regions of the earth. Other large areas of water being trapped by land breaking forth later or forming lakes and seas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U
http://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzijddw1qQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQUpFAcc3FM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c
There is much disagreement about many things in the Bible. However, there is general agreement among Christians on the message God left within. And it's not "was there a world-wide flood?" or "Is evolution really the way God created life's diversity?"
Those are things that don't matter to salvation. Focus on the things that are clear enough that all Christian understand them. That's where the message is.
Yes, that's right, devolution.
There is no "devolution." Evolution is just a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So, for example, if therapsid reptiles evolve simpler jaws, shoulder girdles, and ribs (among other things) and eventually lead to mammals with less complex structure, that is not "devolution." It's just a change in allele frequency, which is evolution.
Things were bigger, better, and more complex. We have not been evolving, we have been devolving.
On the other hand, when some mammals developed much more complex brains over time, that was also evolution. Sometimes it makes things more complex, sometimes less. It's still evolution.
The world itself was larger
Where did the extra mass go? And why didn't the orbital mechanics change when the mass changed? Sorry, not possible.
all animal and plant life was larger
Primates, birds, grasses, Octopi, and many other things have gotten larger. So that's out, too.
and now we see that even viruses were much larger and much more complex then, than now.
That is a prediction of evolutionary theory. To evolve a virus, you have to start with a cell and go from there.
Let God be God and accept the way He did it.
: The Barbarian Sat Sep 23, 2017 - 17:54:11
There is no "devolution." Evolution is just a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So, for example, if therapsid reptiles evolve simpler jaws, shoulder girdles, and ribs (among other things) and eventually lead to mammals with less complex structure, that is not "devolution." It's just a change in allele frequency, which is evolution.
On the other hand, when some mammals developed much more complex brains over time, that was also evolution. Sometimes it makes things more complex, sometimes less. It's still evolution.
Where did the extra mass go? And why didn't the orbital mechanics change when the mass changed? Sorry, not possible.
Primates, birds, grasses, Octopi, and many other things have gotten larger. So that's out, too.
That is a prediction of evolutionary theory. To evolve a virus, you have to start with a cell and go from there.
Let God be God and accept the way He did it.
Baloney.
Good videos relating to the dinosaur soft tissue issue. No rhyme intended. The second video reveals the willingness of scientists supposedly telling us the truth of the same, to lie to a judge in court about why they fired their employee. Obviously they are perfectly willing to lie in support of their own views, and force those with opposite views into silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws9aFxdNA5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8aGH80uVQ
: Amo Sat Sep 23, 2017 - 18:41:31
Good videos relating to the dinosaur soft tissue issue. No rhyme intended. The second video reveals the willingness of scientists supposedly telling us the truth of the same, to lie to a judge in court about why they fired their employee. Obviously they are perfectly willing to lie in support of their own views, and force those with opposite views into silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws9aFxdNA5E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws9aFxdNA5E)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8aGH80uVQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8aGH80uVQ)
This guy didn't prove anything other than he's a nut and has a bitter grudge because his peers reject his ridiculous claims.
: Amo Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 17:20:26
Looks like they missed
Modern Evolution Myth
Stories of Coming Into Being
NASA Finds Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon Hyperion
07.04.07
PASADENA , Calif. - NASA's Cassini spacecraft has revealed for the first time surface details of Saturn's moon Hyperion, including cup-like craters filled with hydrocarbons that may indicate more widespread presence in our solar system of basic chemicals necessary for life.
Hyperion yielded some of its secrets to the battery of instruments aboard Cassini as the spacecraft flew close by in September 2005. Water and carbon dioxide ices were found, as well as dark material that fits the spectral profile of hydrocarbons.
"Of special interest is the presence on Hyperion of hydrocarbons--combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms that are found in comets, meteorites, and the dust in our galaxy," said Dale Cruikshank, a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., and the paper's lead author. "These molecules, when embedded in ice and exposed to ultraviolet light, form new molecules of biological significance. This doesn't mean that we have found life, but it is a further indication that the basic chemistry needed for life is widespread in the universe."
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini20070704.html
Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.
The new findings from the study led by Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., are reported in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
(:-
: Alan Sat Sep 23, 2017 - 19:34:37
This guy didn't prove anything other than he's a nut and has a bitter grudge because his peers reject his ridiculous claims.
Right, like the ridiculous claim that dinosaur soft tissues survived 68 to over a hundred million years. Denial passes for science, when science is agenda driven. These "scientists" had no problem at all lying to a judge in order to complete their agenda of firing a scientist whose views were different than their own. How much more willing would they be to lie in order to protect their own jobs, reputations, and agendas? How many more people all over the place are or have been treated similarly when finding evidence which tells a different story than main stream scientists will allow for? This is fallen humanity at its best. Always seeking to control and manipulate all around in accordance with our selfish pride.
Amo, the character trait you describe there is not a product of science even though some scientists exhibit such. And it is not limited to scientists. The vitriol spewed out by many YECs is no less caustic, divisive, controlling and manipulative than that by some scientists. All you need to do to see that is to look in the mirror. Seriously, in reading you, one would think that any who might disagree with you on this subject could not possibly ever enter into God's kingdom. It is for you, it seems, an absolute test of fellowship; something that simply should not be -- as the Barbarian has repeatedly pointed out to you.
: 4WD Sun Sep 24, 2017 - 08:45:00
Amo, the character trait you describe there is not a product of science even though some scientists exhibit such. And it is not limited to scientists. The vitriol spewed out by many YECs is no less caustic, divisive, controlling and manipulative than that by some scientists. All you need to do to see that is to look in the mirror. Seriously, in reading you, one would think that any who might disagree with you on this subject could not possibly ever enter into God's kingdom. It is for you, it seems, an absolute test of fellowship; something that simply should not be -- as the Barbarian has repeatedly pointed out to you.
I would not dare to separate myself from sinners as though I were any better than any of them, yet there is a major difference between our views and faith. I am not defending my own views, but the testimony of the holy scriptures. Evolutionists are defending the views of fallen humanity, in contrast and contradiction to God's word. Their faith is in the observations of fallen humanity, above the word of God. They tell you God's word does not mean what plainly states, but rather what they teach it says, though they will not explain such in any detail. They then also refuse all evidence which supports what the bible does plainly state, and again teach that all such evidence is false as is the word of God pertaining to it, which only they truly understand but again cannot explain to anyone else. I am not the one defending views which blatantly contradict the testimony of scripture, all of which scripture your claim to be untrue, or has a meaning which no one can really explain but fully supports a theory which contradicts plain conclusive statements in scripture.
2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do you believe the above testimony? How can you, when you deny the creation and flood accounts of scripture, which are supported all through the same and even by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself? How can the above be true, if when the scriptures conclusively state that the world was created in six days, it really meant countless millions of years which no one really knows the length of yet? When all the details of the creation account really cannot even be understood, because it just a story representing something else, which God allowed and taught as truth for thousands of years? This is a matter of faith. What is our faith in? The word of God, or the observations of fallen humanity? That is all. We are all sinners, choosing either faith in God, or faith in ourselves.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Your faith is in the wrong place, this is my contention. You do not believe the testimony of God's word regarding the creation and flood accounts. They cannot fit into your evolutionary faith, they are therefore sacrificed to fallen human observation.
: Amo Sun Sep 24, 2017 - 09:42:41I would not dare to separate myself from sinners as though I were any better than any of them, yet there is a major difference between our views and faith. I am not defending my own views, but the testimony of the holy scriptures.
Of course you are defending your own views. As I have said several times here previously. It is not about what God says, it is about what you think God means when He says what He does. Your interpretation is no holier than anyone else's. You just, self-righteously, think it is.
You, Amo, declare that any who disagree with your view have their faith in the wrong place. How unscriptural is that? So sad; so very, very sad and troubling.
: 4WD Sun Sep 24, 2017 - 12:56:36
Of course you are defending your own views. As I have said several times here previously. It is not about what God says, it is about what you think God means when He says what He does. Your interpretation is no holier than anyone else's. You just, self-righteously, think it is.
You, Amo, declare that any who disagree with your view have their faith in the wrong place. How unscriptural is that? So sad; so very, very sad and troubling.
What is your argument, but that there is no objective truth, and the scriptures cannot be understood well enough by any for any to actually understand rightly. Is this what scripture teaches about itself? No, this is your stand, because you reject its plain testimony in certain places, while claiming authenticity in others that do not contradict something else you have chosen to believe.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
The bible clearly states the details of the creation of this earth in six days. You demand this cannot be true according to the observations of fallen humanity. God Himself then conclusively reiterates this truth in one of the commandments written with His own finger, and spoken to Israel with His own mouth. You still reject the same in favor of fallen human observation, and then demand that anyone who believes His testimony is only arguing their own views. According to you, even the commandments of God cannot be understood by humanity at all I guess. How cruel God is according to your understanding, demanding people keep commandments they can't really even understand, which don't even really mean what they say. Then even punishing them several times over for not keeping the one commandment that according to you, doesn't even really mean what it says. Yet I am the one just arguing my own views. I don't think so. Your understanding is darkened because your faith is misplaced. Therefore you accuse the one who has faith in God's word above fallen humanities erroneous observations, as deceived.
Mk 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.You reject and lay aside the commandment of God, that you might hold the erroneous evolutionary tradition of men.
: Amo Sun Sep 24, 2017 - 08:36:00
Denial passes for science, when science is agenda driven.
What is this "agenda" you speak of?
Right, like the ridiculous claim that dinosaur soft tissues survived 68 to over a hundred million years.
So far, no one's even been able to show intact cells, much less tissues. They've found some organic molecules that can last for hundred of millions of years in the right conditions, but that was already known.
This guy could shut every critic up by just providing a sample of the "tissue" he claims to have found. So far, nothing.
: Alan Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 19:41:54
You're a couple hundred million years off base.
https://www.livescience.com/31910-north-america-geology-through-time.html
based of course on the false presupposition that the earth is that old
: 4WD Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 19:52:15
I don't think you are seeing the picture quite as a global flood would be. If the entire earth is covered with water, there is no place for it to go. So I ask again, If Noah's flood was a global event, just where was the water running to when it supposedly eroded the canyon to what it is today?
Yes, now i understand.
That is a good question that i am not sure of the answer to.
However, 1) this to me does not negate the fact there was indeed a global flood and 2) you are assuming the waters rose gently and then went down gently. I am picturing huge erroding taking place.
: The Barbarian Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 20:55:42
And we have another Gish Gallop. Let's take a look...
I'm assuming you cut and pasted this. You should know that there is an extensive precambrian fossil complex. The Ediacaran biota includes many forms, including some that are also in the Cambrian.
Surprise. Complex living things predate the Cambrian. So there goes your Flood.
LOL. you are assuming radiometric dating methods work and the evidence shows they do NOT.
Carbon dating, for example relies on a number of UNKNOWN assumptions that cannot be proven.
Plus, we see polystrata fossils running through multiple layers.
And, all a fossil can tell you is that something died. anything else is in your imagination.
: The Barbarian Sat Sep 16, 2017 - 20:55:42
So, by your own admission, the fossil record refutes creationism.
Nope, the fossil record exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks.
That's wrong too. When I was a young undergraduate, we had no fossils of whales with legs, feathered dinosaurs, other species of humans, transitions between fish and tetrapods, and so on. Today, we do. So reality overturns that objection.
Ahh, the feathered dinosaur. Disproven ages ago. whales with legs, yeah right.
Nope. You assume that deposits of sediment have to be slow. But they can be rapid. Polystrate trees are forming in a reservoir a few miles from my house, as woods flooded by a dam, are being buried by sediment over a period of decades.
No, these layers are millions of years apart in age, apparently.
: The Barbarian Mon Sep 18, 2017 - 12:05:25
The entire gelological column exists in a few places on Earth
prove it
: KiwiChristian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 05:58:56However, 1) this to me does not negate the fact there was indeed a global flood and 2) you are assuming the waters rose gently and then went down gently. I am picturing huge erroding taking place.
No I am not assuming the waters rose gently and then went down gently. First of all if the mountains were covered in 40 days and 40 nights of rain, that would mean that water rose everywhere on earth by about 425 feet per day just to cover Mt. Ararat [17,000 ft elevation]. To cover Mt Everest [29,000 ft elevation] in the Himalayas the water would need to rise everywhere on earth by about 725 feet per day. There is nothing gentle about that.
The point remains, In Genesis it says that the water receded from the earth. Receded to where?
: KiwiChristian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 06:03:23LOL. you are assuming radiometric dating methods work and the evidence shows they do NOT.
If you are interested in the subject, you should read
Radiometric Dating,A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens You can find it here:
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf
In fact you can find many more articles which address the question from a Christian perspective here:
http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=radiographic+dating
: 4WD Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 06:35:34
No I am not assuming the waters rose gently and then went down gently. First of all if the mountains were covered in 40 days and 40 nights of rain, that would mean that water rose everywhere on earth by about 425 feet per day just to cover Mt. Ararat [17,000 ft elevation]. To cover Mt Everest [29,000 ft elevation] in the Himalayas the water would need to rise everywhere on earth by about 725 feet per day. There is nothing gentle about that.
The point remains, In Genesis it says that the water receded from the earth. Receded to where?
That's assuming Ararat and Everest existed during the time of the flood. You can find seashells high up Everest.
Perhaps at some point Everest was not as high as today and was covered with water?
Perhaps the mountain was created during or after the flood?
: AVZ Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 06:54:08
That's assuming Ararat and Everest existed during the time of the flood. You can find seashells high up Everest.
Perhaps at some point Everest was not as high as today and was covered with water?
Perhaps the mountain was created during or after the flood?
rofl rofl rofl rofl
Barbarian observes:
The entire gelological column exists in a few places on Earth
prove it
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood 2001 Glen Morton
Morton is a professional geologist, a Christian, and a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research graduate school He adds that there are 25 other locations on Earth where the entire geologic column can be found. Would you like to learn about those?
That's assuming Ararat and Everest existed during the time of the flood. You can find seashells high up Everest.
Perhaps at some point Everest was not as high as today and was covered with water?
Perhaps the mountain was created during or after the flood?
Mt. Everest is composed of the fossils of marine creatures. It is former continental shelf that crumpled up into mountains as India collided with Asia. That collision is continuing. We measure it as a few centimeters a year. And yes, the Himalayas are still getting higher.
LOL. you are assuming radiometric dating methods work and the evidence shows they do NOT.
Not long ago, argon-argon testing accurately dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii. So there's no question that it works.
Carbon dating,...
Is not used by paleontologists, because it has rather short half-life, and is only accurate out to a few tens of thousands of years.
Plus, we see polystrata fossils running through multiple layers.
No one is surprised by that. There are some forming near my house. All you need is a relatively rapid periodic deposition of sediment. Not all sedimentation is at equal rates.
And, all a fossil can tell you is that something died. anything else is in your imagination.
No, you've been misled about that. We can, for example, know how animals lived based on there sturctures. We can know if water-based animals were marine or freshwater, by the ratio of oxygen isotopes. We can know how they breathed by the presence of pneumatized bones, kinds of ribs, and other anatomical features. We often can determine color patterns of reptiles, whether or not they had feathers, and (by the presence of Haversian canals in their bones) whether they were sluggish or highly active.
There are many, many other things. Would you like to learn more about them?
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 18:32:59
Mt. Everest is composed of the fossils of marine creatures. It is former continental shelf that crumpled up into mountains as India collided with Asia. That collision is continuing. We measure it as a few centimeters a year. And yes, the Himalayas are still getting higher.
So whats the proof that during the time of the flood Mount Everest was 29,000 ft high and Ararat was 17,000 ft high, or whats the proof they existed at all at that time?
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 18:32:59
Mt. Everest is composed of the fossils of marine creatures. It is former continental shelf that crumpled up into mountains as India collided with Asia. That collision is continuing. We measure it as a few centimeters a year. And yes, the Himalayas are still getting higher.
What exactly is the evidence that India collided with Asia, as opposed to the idea that Africa pulled away from India? Once Africa pulled away from India, resulting from the fracturing of the earth's crust due to the earth expanding in size, the new oceanic crust forming in the void between the two continents would then be pushed against India, as well the continent of Africa, thus forming the Himalaya mountain range. You will notice that the mid oceanic ridge that lies between India and Africa behaves very much the same as the one between the North American plate and the continent of Europe, and that of Africa. Can you provide your evidence and please explain?
: 4WD Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 06:35:34
No I am not assuming the waters rose gently and then went down gently. First of all if the mountains were covered in 40 days and 40 nights of rain, that would mean that water rose everywhere on earth by about 425 feet per day just to cover Mt. Ararat [17,000 ft elevation]. To cover Mt Everest [29,000 ft elevation] in the Himalayas the water would need to rise everywhere on earth by about 725 feet per day. There is nothing gentle about that.
The point remains, In Genesis it says that the water receded from the earth. Receded to where?
Dont forget that the water came from above AND below when the fountains of the deep burst open.
Where did it recede to? I don't know.
: KiwiChristian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 21:40:39Dont forget that the water came from above AND below when the fountains of the deep burst open.
Where did it recede to? I don't know.
It doesn't really matter whether it is from above or below, whatever "below" might mean in this regard. The simple truth is that to cover Mt Ararat in 40 days and 40 nights the water would have to rise at the rate of about 425 feet per day. That is the equivalent of a 40 story building.
Where it receded to is pretty important. You should have a reasonable explanation of it if you are going to propose that the flood was global. And the truth is there is no reasonable explanation.
Excellent read here regarding the relationship between science and religion, not so much evolution but still relevant nonetheless. Far too many have pitted science against religion rather than simply using science as a tool to observe creation and it's inherent nature.
I encourage you all to have a read. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion
What exactly is the evidence that India collided with Asia, as opposed to the idea that Africa pulled away from India?
Actually, Africa, India, and Antarctica separated and India moved north into Asia.
The evidence was first noted by Alfred Wegener:
Fossils:
(https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/12124/area14mp/y4w978gm-1340588694.jpg)
Glacial marks on rocks:
(http://www.thisoldearth.net/Images/glacial_striations.jpg)
Rocks and mountain ranges:
(https://www.blinklearning.com/useruploads/ctx/a/64010589/r/s/16589999/1-07-bis_p10_en.jpg)
Once Africa pulled away from India, resulting from the fracturing of the earth's crust due to the earth expanding in size,
But it didn't expand. The old oceanic crust was being subducted under continents, or under newer oceanic crust, forming volcanic mountains or volcanic island arcs.
the new oceanic crust forming in the void between the two continents would then be pushed against India, as well the continent of Africa, thus forming the Himalaya mountain range.
Yes.
You will notice that the mid oceanic ridge that lies between India and Africa behaves very much the same as the one between the North American plate and the continent of Europe, and that of Africa. Can you provide your evidence and please explain?
You're missing the many subduction zones where old crust is destroyed even as new crust is being formed at mid-oceanic ridges:
(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geosc10/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geosc10/files/image/Textbook%20images/Unit%203/plates.jpg)
Convergent boundaries happen when two plates push together. If it's two continental crusts, you get piled-up crust and non-volcanic mountains. If it's oceanic crust and continental crust, the oceanic crust is shoved below the continental crust, melts, and rises to form coastal volcanoes. If it's two oceanic crusts, the older one is subducted, melts, and rises to form volcanic island arcs.
: 4WD Fri Sep 29, 2017 - 08:56:31
It doesn't really matter whether it is from above or below, whatever "below" might mean in this regard. The simple truth is that to cover Mt Ararat in 40 days and 40 nights the water would have to rise at the rate of about 425 feet per day. That is the equivalent of a 40 story building.
Where it receded to is pretty important. You should have a reasonable explanation of it if you are going to propose that the flood was global. And the truth is there is no reasonable explanation.
Fact remains you do not know how high Ararat was at the time of the flood, so you wouldn't know how much or how fast the water had to rise.
Fact remains you do not know how high Ararat was at the time of the flood, so you wouldn't know how much or how fast the water had to rise.
By the way, the Bible does not say that the Ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat. It wasn't even called by that name until much later, the name in Biblical times being "Masis." Scripture says that the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, that word being an old name for Armenia.
but the ark has been found
: The Barbarian Fri Sep 29, 2017 - 14:10:01
Actually, Africa, India, and Antarctica separated and India moved north into Asia.
The evidence was first noted by Alfred Wegener:
Fossils:
(https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/12124/area14mp/y4w978gm-1340588694.jpg)
Glacial marks on rocks:
(http://www.thisoldearth.net/Images/glacial_striations.jpg)
Rocks and mountain ranges:
(https://www.blinklearning.com/useruploads/ctx/a/64010589/r/s/16589999/1-07-bis_p10_en.jpg)
But it didn't expand. The old oceanic crust was being subducted under continents, or under newer oceanic crust, forming volcanic mountains or volcanic island arcs.
Yes.
You're missing the many subduction zones where old crust is destroyed even as new crust is being formed at mid-oceanic ridges:
(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geosc10/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geosc10/files/image/Textbook%20images/Unit%203/plates.jpg)
Convergent boundaries happen when two plates push together. If it's two continental crusts, you get piled-up crust and non-volcanic mountains. If it's oceanic crust and continental crust, the oceanic crust is shoved below the continental crust, melts, and rises to form coastal volcanoes. If it's two oceanic crusts, the older one is subducted, melts, and rises to form volcanic island arcs.
You DO know the pangea theory has been refuted, dont you?
I mean, if we in the drain the oceans, the continents are STILL CONNECTED.
: 4WD Fri Sep 29, 2017 - 08:56:31
It doesn't really matter whether it is from above or below, whatever "below" might mean in this regard. The simple truth is that to cover Mt Ararat in 40 days and 40 nights the water would have to rise at the rate of about 425 feet per day. That is the equivalent of a 40 story building.
Where it receded to is pretty important. You should have a reasonable explanation of it if you are going to propose that the flood was global. And the truth is there is no reasonable explanation.
ok.
God bless.
: The Barbarian Thu Sep 28, 2017 - 18:41:20
No one is surprised by that. There are some forming near my house. All you need is a relatively rapid periodic deposition of sediment. Not all sedimentation is at equal rates.
How do you explain that the layers these trees are running through are apparently MILLIONS of years difference in age?
: KiwiChristian Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 03:48:39
You DO know the pangea theory has been refuted, dont you?
I mean, if we in the drain the oceans, the continents are STILL CONNECTED.
Refuted by whom?
Of course the earth is a solid mass beneath the puddle deep layer of water we refer to as the oceans.
: Alan Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 07:37:30
Refuted by whom?
Of course the earth is a solid mass beneath the puddle deep layer of water we refer to as the oceans.
Not the same thing. We know the theory of pangea has never been proven. You either have faith in it or you do not.
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 08:00:37
Not the same thing. We know the theory of pangea has never been proven. You either have faith in it or you do not.
While it has never been proven, there certainly is considerable evidence of it. And what is faith other than a response to the evidence presented concerning it, whatever the it might be. That is precisely what our faith in God is. It is our response to the overwhelming evidence which is presented concerning Him.
: 4WD Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 08:28:14
While it has never been proven, there certainly is considerable evidence of it. And what is faith other than a response to the evidence presented concerning it, whatever the it might be. That is precisely what our faith in God is. It is our response to the overwhelming evidence which is presented concerning Him.
The same evidence is considered and applied by creationists in a completely different way than atheistic and bible doubting "Christian" evolutionists. The former put their faith in the testimony of scripture regarding our origins, the latter put that faith in the observations of fallen humanity, many of whom deny God altogether. You can read the articles of these "Scientists" who speak of what exactly happened hundreds of millions and many billions of years ago as though they know it with unquestionable certainty. They are the very definition of self love, self importance, self aggrandizement, and self exaltation. Presuming knowledge far beyond their scope in time and reality. The bible refers to their pompous attitudes ever increasing as the end approaches.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be
lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses,
so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.A fit description and contrast between those who place their faith in the word of God, and those who love and place their faith in themselves. Their are professed "scientists" in both groups. One examines evidence in the light and truth of scripture, the other examines evidence in the darkness and deception of self importance and reliance in defiance of the same.
Isa 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.What are evolutionary scientists today, but those who look to the dead world of the past for wisdom, over the law and testimony of God. They look to the long dead things of this earth and rely upon their own observations of them, apart from and in defiance of the testimony of the word of God. Therefore are they willingly deceived along with the masses that listen to and believe them.
The following are some excerpts from scientists who make their observations in accordance with the testimony of the word of God. the entire articles may be examined at the links provided above them.
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/larger-organisms/
Larger Organisms in the Past
Often larger organisms are healthier and longer-lived than smaller specimens of the same kind. Certainly environmental factors (particularly nutrition) and genetic variations play an important role in determining a creature's size and its lifespan. However, there are many creationists who believe that the larger ancestors of modern organisms (as seen in the fossil record) provide important evidence of decline in biological systems. The early earth would have provided the optimal environment for healthy organisms (with specialized original biomes created directly by God). Perhaps part of the explanation for gigantism was the atmospheric conditions of the pre-Flood world. But we know that some giant species persisted even in the centuries after the Flood (ice age megafauna, for example). Undoubtedly, biological kinds continued to decline as they do today. With some possible exceptions (like the blue whale and African Elephant) the fossilized remains of the various animal kinds are significantly larger than their modern-day counterparts demonstrating a general trend of devolution over time...............................
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
Have you ever wondered how those giant life forms could have survived in the past? In West Texas, a fossilized flying reptile, known as a pterodactyl, has been found, with a wingspan of 52 feet. There is no way such a creature could have flown with today's atmospheric pressure, which is 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level. However, it would have had no difficulty with and atmospheric pressure of around 32 pounds per square inch. The firmament above the earth would have greatly increased the atmospheric pressure saturating the blood with oxygen, which the fossil record found to be 30% compared with 20% today.
Dr. Baugh said: "We've been doing extensive research into the ancient atmosphere found in the fossil record. Research indicates that essentially everything was larger in the past. For instance, the club mosses which today reach 16 to 18 inches often approach 200 feet in the fossil record. "The great dinosaurs, with their relatively small lung capacity, reached tremendous stature. Seismosaurus could reach his head almost 70 feet in the air. Something has to explain this anomaly in terms of today's atmosphere. If we had those conditions today, we could run 200 miles without fatigue".
Dr. Hilton Hinderliter of Apollo Campus Pennsylvania. State University, studied the evidence presented at the Glen Rose, who excavations and stated: "I would have to say that the belief in evolution is in a state of terminal illness but its death will only be admitted by a new generation of scientists whose minds have not been prejudiced by the type of education now prevalent in the nation's public schools, an education which starts with the belief that evolution has happened, which interprets all evidence according to that faith and simply discards any evidence which cannot be fitted into the evolutionary framework" (Quoted from "Dinosaurs" by Dr. Carl E. Baugh, 1987. Promise Publishing Co., Orange, CA 92667).
This interesting photograph is of a hammer found in similar strata. It's iron head and wooden handle are solidified in sandstone. Metallurgical studies show that it was constructed of a type of iron that could not have been made under present atmospheric conditions. It is believed that before the flood our atmosphere was compressed to approximately twice its current density, and no ultraviolet radiation.
In June 1934, the Hahn family discovered a rock, sitting loose on a ledge beside a waterfall outside of London, Texas. The site primarily consists of 75-100 million years old cretaceous rock. Noticing this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, they cracked it open, exposing the hammer head. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur (no carbon). Density tests indicate exceptional casting quality.
The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane shows the interior metal to be very pure, with no bubbles.
Modern industry cannot consistently produce iron castings with this quality, as evidenced by test results that show bubbles and density variations that have caused pump and valve bodies to break. The handle eye is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions, oval shaped, and roughly 1" x 1/2".
: Amo Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 12:01:50The same evidence is considered and applied by creationists in a completely different way than atheistic and bible doubting "Christian"
You think too much of yourself. I am a creationist. I am not a Young Earth creationist (YEC). As far as YECs are concerned, the same evidence is simply rejected out of hand, not because it doesn't match up with Scripture, but rather because (1) it doesn't match up with their interpretation of Scripture and (2) most simply do not understand what the evidence is saying.
: 4WD Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 14:20:30
You think too much of yourself. I am a creationist. I am not a Young Earth creationist (YEC). As far as YECs are concerned, the same evidence is simply rejected out of hand, not because it doesn't match up with Scripture, but rather because (1) it doesn't match up with their interpretation of Scripture and (2) most simply do not understand what the evidence is saying.
I have already shared info on this thread, from YEC's who believe there was likely one super continent before the flood. The continents now existing as they do as a result of the flood. If I am not mistaken, you do not even believe in a global flood as the bible describes, do you? Correct me if I am wrong. If you think that believing the scriptures is thinking to much of yourself, then according to the same, I do think to much of myself. Though scripture itself describes the opposite as a rule, as I have already quoted. The scriptures imply that it is those who think more of their own opinions than scripture, who think to much of themselves.
: Amo Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 16:23:30I have already shared info on this thread, from YEC's who believe there was likely one super continent before the flood. The continents now existing as they do as a result of the flood.
Perhaps you would like to share the physical mechanism of just how the flood could cause continents to move thousands of miles in the year or so of the flood.
If I am not mistaken, you do not even believe in a global flood as the bible describes, do you?
You have of course asked the wrong question. Or perhaps it is just that you have interjected your own interpretation of the account of the flood into your question. The correct question would be whether I believe in the flood as the Bible describes. And the answer is yes I do.
In all of this I believe the Bible is what God says. I just don't believe in your interpretation of what God means when He says it.
: 4WD Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 17:04:24
Perhaps you would like to share the physical mechanism of just how the flood could cause continents to move thousands of miles in the year or so of the flood. You have of course asked the wrong question. Or perhaps it is just that you have interjected your own interpretation of the account of the flood into your question. The correct question would be whether I believe in the flood as the Bible describes. And the answer is yes I do.
In all of this I believe the Bible is what God says. I just don't believe in your interpretation of what God means when He says it.
I know, dodge and evade. I am not "heady, or high-minded" enough to presume to know exactly how the continents moved out of their place due to the flood. Nor am I "heady, or high-minded" enough to deny or add or subtract meaning to or from God's word to fit the confines of my very limited mind. I leave such pretentious presumption to the truly heady and high-minded rejectors and manipulators of God's word. The catastrophe which scripture records could easily completely alter the surface of the earth. The changes recorded in the scriptures themselves are highly suggestive of the same. Of course, you know better than to believe what they say, just for what they say. Don't you?
: Amo Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 17:23:17 I leave such pretentious presumption to the truly heady and high-minded rejectors and manipulators of God's word.
And that is of course you, dear Amo, that is you.
: 4WD Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 17:26:20
And that is of course you, dear Amo, that is you.
Quote the scriptures and show me how I have done the same, and I will quote scripture and show you how you have done the same. We both know that only one of us can do this and clearly show how the other has added to, or taken away from what the words of scripture right in front of all faces who will behold the same, plainly state. Nevertheless, please do continue, and reveal how I have done as you say.
: The Barbarian Fri Sep 29, 2017 - 14:10:01
Actually, Africa, India, and Antarctica separated and India moved north into Asia.
The evidence was first noted by Alfred Wegener:
Fossils:
(https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/12124/area14mp/y4w978gm-1340588694.jpg)
Glacial marks on rocks:
(http://www.thisoldearth.net/Images/glacial_striations.jpg)
Rocks and mountain ranges:
(https://www.blinklearning.com/useruploads/ctx/a/64010589/r/s/16589999/1-07-bis_p10_en.jpg)
But it didn't expand. The old oceanic crust was being subducted under continents, or under newer oceanic crust, forming volcanic mountains or volcanic island arcs.
Yes.
You're missing the many subduction zones where old crust is destroyed even as new crust is being formed at mid-oceanic ridges:
(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geosc10/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geosc10/files/image/Textbook%20images/Unit%203/plates.jpg)
Convergent boundaries happen when two plates push together. If it's two continental crusts, you get piled-up crust and non-volcanic mountains. If it's oceanic crust and continental crust, the oceanic crust is shoved below the continental crust, melts, and rises to form coastal volcanoes. If it's two oceanic crusts, the older one is subducted, melts, and rises to form volcanic island arcs.
If this is true, what two continental plates pushed together to form the Rocky Mountains?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen. 7:11-12
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
Gen.8:1-14
1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
6 So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. 7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. 8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself. 10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth. 12 So he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore.
13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
Genesis 9:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Can any scientist, even the Christian scientist, here explain what happened then as described by the passages quoted above?
Can any scientist, even the Christian scientist, here explain the miracle of the flood?
If not, would not the Christian scientist believe that the flood did occur?
Termites cannot digest wood.
Microbes in their gut do the job.
The microbes cannot live outside the termite.
The termite cannot live without the microbes.
Which evolved first?
: KiwiChristian Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 01:40:19
Termites cannot digest wood.
Microbes in their gut do the job.
The microbes cannot live outside the termite.
The termite cannot live without the microbes.
Which evolved first?
Simply put, all complex creatures on this earth are dependent on microbiome for their very existence. The study of microbiota is more of a support for evolution than an argument against since microbes are shown to evolve rapidly with environmental changes (our bodies). Did you know that the human body has over a trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies, most of which are crucial to our existence?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848870/
: Sonofason Sat Sep 30, 2017 - 19:10:44
If this is true, what two continental plates pushed together to form the Rocky Mountains?
It is NOT true, and the ridiculous thought to enter into the mind of man concerning creation. Give ONE verse of scripture that even hints that this may be so. Remember....
: Writer of Hebrews Hebrews 11:2~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
We just as easily can say also that the things that
"seems to fit", do not necessarily fit as the continents "seem" to do.
RB, are you seriously suggesting that there are no tectonic plates or that they do not or are not moving?
You DO know the pangea theory has been refuted, dont you?
Nope. Since the early 1960s, when the discovery of mid-oceanic ridges explained why the continents split apart from each other, no geologists doubt that the did so.
I mean, if we in the drain the oceans, the continents are STILL CONNECTED.
Nope. Oceanic crust is much different than continental shelf, being thinner, denser, and composed of different rock. It was, as you just learned, produced from mantle material upwelling from blow. Continents are mostly granite
Larger Organisms in the Past
Often larger organisms are healthier and longer-lived than smaller specimens of the same kind. Certainly environmental factors (particularly nutrition) and genetic variations play an important role in determining a creature's size and its lifespan. However, there are many creationists who believe that the larger ancestors of modern organisms (as seen in the fossil record) provide important evidence of decline in biological systems. The early earth would have provided the optimal environment for healthy organisms (with specialized original biomes created directly by God). Perhaps part of the explanation for gigantism was the atmospheric conditions of the pre-Flood world. But we know that some giant species persisted even in the centuries after the Flood (ice age megafauna, for example). Undoubtedly, biological kinds continued to decline as they do today. With some possible exceptions (like the blue whale and African Elephant) the fossilized remains of the various animal kinds are significantly larger than their modern-day counterparts demonstrating a general trend of devolution over time...............................
The story is wrong. Trees today are larger than early trees in the fossil record. Elephants in the last few thosand years have been larger than any elephant in the early fossil record. Primates are much larger than the earliest primates. The largest known species of bats are found today, as are the largest species of giraffes. Wolverines are larger than any known fossil viverrids. The largest known horses are alive today.
Your guy is just picking and choosing the evidence that fits his belief.
: Michael2012 Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 00:33:39
Genesis 9:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Is the "earth" in these two verses the same earth? The same Hebrew word is used in both verses.
Termites cannot digest wood.
Microbes in their gut do the job.
The microbes cannot live outside the termite.
The termite cannot live without the microbes.
Which evolved first?
The bacteria. Termites evolved from wood roaches, which have the bacteria in their gut. And the bacteria are quite similar to free-living bacteria that decay wood. Moreover, it has been shown that the bacteria are not needed by termites to digest cellulose, and in fact not all termites have them:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030504919290194V
Genesis 9:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Is the "earth" in these two verses the same earth? The same Hebrew word is used in both verses.
The word "eretz" used in these two verses means "land." It is used in the Bible to mean a specific plot of land, the land of a specific nation, "hereabouts", and so on. It never meant "global."
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 08:16:09
The word "eretz" used in these two verses means "land." It is used in the Bible to mean a specific plot of land, the land of a specific nation, "hereabouts", and so on. It never meant "global."
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
: 4WD Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 08:11:33
Michael2012 on Today at 00:33:39
Genesis 9:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Is the "earth" in these two verses the same earth? The same Hebrew word is used in both verses.
Firstly, I did not cite Gen 41:57. So, just say so if the "earth" in the verses I cited, you don't take as to refer to the whole earth.
Here's another of the verses I cited in Reply #772 for your consideration.
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The
end of all flesh has come before Me, for t
he earth is filled with violence through them; and behold,
I will destroy them with the earth.
So, it seems to me that you don't believe that God has flooded the entire earth, even while scriptures speaks of:
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days.
The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and
it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and
all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and
the mountains were covered.Also, apparently you had avoided commenting on Gen. 7:11-12, about the
fountains of the great deep being broken up. What do you say this is?
And also of Gen.8:1-14, about the
wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the
fountains of the deep being stopped. What do you say about this?
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 08:13:17
The bacteria. Termites evolved from wood roaches,
Has this been observed?
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 08:06:45
The story is wrong. Trees today are larger than early trees in the fossil record. Elephants in the last few thosand years have been larger than any elephant in the early fossil record. Primates are much larger than the earliest primates. The largest known species of bats are found today, as are the largest species of giraffes. Wolverines are larger than any known fossil viverrids. The largest known horses are alive today.
Your guy is just picking and choosing the evidence that fits his belief.
Your info doesn't seem to be very accurate. Of course fossil evidence is changing all the time, and evolutionary theory cannot always keep with the new discoveries and therefore changes required according to the same. Theories are postulated without reference to all information available, let alone continuing new discoveries and evidence. Much of which causes problems for previous postulations based upon insufficient information. In general it seems, plant and animal life have decreased in size, not increased. Nor are many supposed links in evolutionary theory links at all, but rather variations within species, or separate species altogether. Actual macro evolution has never been observed anywhere, and is absolute theory with no observable facts to support it at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_prehistoric_animals#Elephants.2C_mammoths.2C_and_mastodons_.28Proboscidea.29
Elephants, mammoths, and mastodons (Proboscidea)[edit]
• The largest known land mammal ever was a proboscidean called Palaeoloxodon namadicus which weighed about 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons), and was about 5.2 metres (17.1 feet) tall at the shoulder.[28] The largest individuals of the steppe mammoth of Eurasia (Mammuthus trogontherii) estimated to reach 4.5 metres (14.8 ft) at the shoulders and 14.3 tonnes (15.8 short tons) in weight.[33][34]
• Some other enormous proboscideans include the southern mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis), the imperial mammoth (Mammuthus imperator),[citation needed] and Deinotherium.
Primates (Primata)[edit]
• The largest known primate of all time was Gigantopithecus blackii, standing 3 m (9.8 ft) tall and weighing 540 kilograms (1,200 lb).[31][32]
• The largest known old world monkey, the prehistoric baboon Dinopithecus grew even larger than modern Mandrills, weighing as much as a grown man.
• Some prehistoric prosimians grew to huge sizes as well. Archaeoindris was a 1.5 meter long lemur that lived in Madagascar and weighed 200 kg, more than a silverback gorilla. Megaladapis is another large extinct lemur at 1.3 to 1.5 m (4.3 to 4.9 ft) in length.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx28NIC7WCc
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304191213.htm
Giant Fossil Bats Out Of Africa, 35 Million Years Old
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/10/the-biggest-giraffe-of-all-time/
The Biggest Giraffe of all Time
https://equusmagazine.com/blog-equus/horse-fossil-yukon-dna-genome-arctic-alberta-froese-przewalski-evolution
A Giant Among Horse Fossils Rises from the Arctic Permafrost to Revise Evolutionary Theory
In your imagination, what do prehistoric horses look like? For most of us, it means a hooved animal about the size of a fox. The diminutive size of fossil horses in natural history museums and our equine science textbooks tells us how tiny they were. But now, maybe we should revise that image because not all ancient horses were tiny. To prove that point, Canadian researchers have found a veritable giant among horse fossiles deep in the Arctic frost.......................
Yukon paleontologist Grant Zazula, a contributor to the study, showed that the horse fell within a line of horses that includes all modern horses and the last remaining truly wild horses, the Przewalski's horse from the Mongolian Steppes of Central Asia. Zazula notes that the discovery of the fossil "is testament to the remarkable archive of natural history in Canadian permafrost."....................
Also remarkable was that the ancient DNA survived so long. "It bends, if not breaks, the rules that govern DNA decay and pushes back the time in which DNA is recoverable by nearly an order of magnitude," said Beth Shapiro, an evolutionary biologist and ancient DNA expert at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a collaborator in the study. "Had it not been frozen for the entire duration of that 700,000 years, I doubt that any recoverable DNA would have survived."
Trees -
http://greaterancestors.com/ancient-trees-more-than-twice-the-height-of-the-tallest-giant-redwoods/
https://www.seeker.com/ancient-giant-trees-found-petrified-in-thailand-1767323026.html
https://www.livescience.com/18735-ancient-fossil-forest.html
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/yellowstones-petrified-forest
Animals -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLdTGhpkeRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e8Qjy7VHnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_fK1PdS9Bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh_90PjFnNA
https://ourplnt.com/worlds-top-six-biggest-prehistoric-crocodiles-ever-lived/
: Michael2012 Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 09:27:36Firstly, I did not cite Gen 41:57. So, just say so if the "earth" in the verses I cited, you don't take as to refer to the whole earth.
I know you didn't. I did for the obvious reasons. And I think any rational person would see why. But perhaps you don't. But that is okay because I have begun to expect that.
: 4WD Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 20:26:10
Michael2012 on Today at 09:27:36
Firstly, I did not cite Gen 41:57. So, just say so if the "earth" in the verses I cited, you don't take as to refer to the whole earth.
I know you didn't. I did for the obvious reasons. And I think any rational person would see why. But perhaps you don't. But that is okay because I have begun to expect that.
So, you just pick to comment on this one, and avoid the rest of my post? Well...
Firstly, I did not cite Gen 41:57. So, just say so if the "earth" in the verses I cited, you don't take as to refer to the whole earth.
Here's another of the verses I cited in Reply #772 for your consideration.
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
So, it seems to me that you don't believe that God has flooded the entire earth, even while scriptures speaks of:
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
Also, apparently you had avoided commenting on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up. What do you say this is?
And also of Gen.8:1-14, about the wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the fountains of the deep being stopped. What do you say about this?
So, perhaps I'd go ask
the Barbarian instead.
To The Barbarian, Alan, or to any Christian scientist here: :
Would you care to answer my questions in my post here? Thanks.
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen. 7:11-12
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
Gen.8:1-14
1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
6 So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. 7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. 8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself. 10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth. 12 So he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore.
13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
Genesis 9:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Can any scientist, even the Christian scientist, here explain what happened then as described by the passages quoted above?
Can any scientist, even the Christian scientist, here explain the miracle of the flood?
If not, would not the Christian scientist believe that the flood did occur?
To The Barbarian, Alan, or to any Christian scientist here:
1. Do you not believe that God flooded the whole earth in the days of Noah as recorded in the holy scriptures? And what is it to you when it says "destroy" them with the earth in Gen. 6:13?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?
3. And also on Gen.8:1-14, about the wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the fountains of the deep being stopped, what do you say the scientist say about this?
: Michael2012 Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 22:29:35I know you didn't. I did for the obvious reasons. And I think any rational person would see why. But perhaps you don't. But that is okay because I have begun to expect that.
So, you just pick to comment on this one, and avoid the rest of my post? Well...
I answered you entire post. If you understand that the Hebrew word "erets" doesn't and never did mean "global", you would understand that I didn't avoid the rest of your post.
: 4WD Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 06:43:30
I answered you entire post. If you understand that the Hebrew word "erets" doesn't and never did mean "global", you would understand that I didn't avoid the rest of your post.
I'm sorry, but you did and still avoid the rest of my post. If not, then please go and address the questions which until now you just ignored.
So, it seems to me that you don't believe that God has flooded the entire earth, even while scriptures speaks of:
Gen.7:17-24
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
Also, apparently you had avoided commenting on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up. What do you say this is?
And also of Gen.8:1-14, about the wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the fountains of the deep being stopped. What do you say about this?
And with regards your argument with the word "erets", consider the verse I cited, if "erets" there would not refer to the whole earth, taking notice of the bold words. Here let me cite it for your convenience.
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of
all flesh has come before Me, for
the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold,
I will destroy them with the earth.
4WD...
If you understand that the Hebrew word "erets" doesn't and never did mean "global"Consider the verses still.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.
Genesis 1:2 The
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:10 And
God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the
earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the
earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens,
Genesis 14:19 And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and
earthGenesis 18:18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed in him?
And many more.
And these:
Gen 41:56 When the famine was spread over all the face of the earth, then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Do you believe people from the entire global earth come to Egypt to buy grain? If not, why not?
: 4WD Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 09:12:46
And these:
Gen 41:56 When the famine was spread over all the face of the earth, then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Do you believe people from the entire global earth come to Egypt to buy grain? If not, why not?
Ok, since you just keep on saying that "earth" in
some verses does not refer to all of the land on the entire earth, which I can agree, that perhaps, you would just keep avoiding and ignoring the verses I cited and avoid the rest of my post. And it is clear now that in the verses I cited, you could only accept "earth" to point to a piece of land and in no way mean to refer to all the land of the entire planet that God created. And so, you don't believe that God destroyed the earth, that is, all land, by the flood at Noah's time. With waters higher than the mountains, that is, water above even on mountains that are way above sea levels at that time. So, okay. I can understand why you consistently evade. It will run contrary to whatever science have been saying about the impossibility of a world wide flood happening at Noah's time. I see the implication in what you believe.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 10:05:10
Ok, since you just keep on saying that "earth" in some verses does not refer to all of the land on the entire earth, which I can agree, that perhaps, you would just keep avoiding and ignoring the verses I cited and avoid the rest of my post. And it is clear now that in the verses I cited, you could only accept "earth" to point to a piece of land and in no way mean to refer to all the land of the entire planet that God created. And so, you don't believe that God destroyed the earth, that is, all land, by the flood at Noah's time. With waters higher than the mountains, that is, water above even on mountains that are way above sea levels at that time. So, okay. I can understand why you consistently evade. It will run contrary to whatever science have been saying about the impossibility of a world wide flood happening at Noah's time. I see the implication in what you believe.
I agree that some of the verses you cited do indeed point to the entire earth. But some do not. And for obvious reasons.
: 4WD Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 12:04:36
I agree that some of the verses you cited do indeed point to the entire earth. But some do not. And for obvious reasons.
Specifically on this verse, what do you understand?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Has this been observed?
The transitional forms are still alive...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Mastotermes_darwiniensis.jpg/220px-Mastotermes_darwiniensis.jpg)
What is the creature on the left? If you said, "cockroach", give yourself a lump of coal. But if you said, "termite", give yourself a PEZ dispenser with your favorite cartoon character. It is in fact a specimen of Mastotermes darwiniensis, a large and primitive termite that lives in Australia (they get all the cool critters). It looks like a roach because termites evolved from roaches, and this particular genus contains primitive members that still resemble their roach cousins in many respects. On the flip-side, roaches of the wood-eating genus Cryptocercus have many termite-like features, including obligate gut flora and parental care of nymphs. The termites that we're familiar with – the little white things that eat houses – are simply the nymph stage of an otherwise roach-like insect, and Cryptocercus nymphs look an awful lot like termites themselves.
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/transitional-sp.html
Specifically on this verse, what do you understand?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Remember the Hebrew word means "land." So it says the "land is filled with violence", and "I will destroy them with the land."
Now it could mean that area, the country, the land known to the Hebrews, and so on. In the absence of any statement that it was worldwide, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was.
1. Do you not believe that God flooded the whole earth in the days of Noah as recorded in the holy scriptures?
As you know, "eretz" means "land", not "the whole world", although it could mean that. Given that God doesn't say that it meant the entire world, we would be adding to scripture to say that it did.
And what is it to you when it says "destroy" them with the earth in Gen. 6:13?
Abraham came from an area subject to devastating floods, but there is also the great flood that created the Black Sea and covered hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land, including settlments and mountains. And it happened just about the right time. We don't know if this was the actual flood or if it's an allegory. Doesn't matter. If you're focused on that, you'll miss the message.
2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in. The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall. There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground. So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs." Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.
3. And also on Gen.8:1-14, about the wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the fountains of the deep being stopped, what do you say the scientist say about this?
Like the others, figurative. Wind doesn't shut off water flow.
Your info doesn't seem to be very accurate. Of course fossil evidence is changing all the time, and evolutionary theory cannot always keep with the new discoveries and therefore changes required according to the same. Theories are postulated without reference to all information available, let alone continuing new discoveries and evidence. Much of which causes problems for previous postulations based upon insufficient information. In general it seems, plant and animal life have decreased in size, not increased.
Primates got bigger. Horses got bigger. Giraffes God bigger. Bats got bigger.
Elephants, mammoths, and mastodons (Proboscidea)[edit]
• The largest known land mammal ever was a proboscidean called Palaeoloxodon namadicus which weighed about 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons), and was about 5.2 metres (17.1 feet) tall at the shoulder.[28] The largest individuals of the steppe mammoth of Eurasia (Mammuthus trogontherii) estimated to reach 4.5 metres (14.8 ft) at the shoulders and 14.3 tonnes (15.8 short tons) in weight.[33][34]
• Some other enormous proboscideans include the southern mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis), the imperial mammoth (Mammuthus imperator),[citation needed] and Deinotherium.
All very recent. The last few thousand years. On the other hand, the earliest known elephants were about the size of a dog.
Primates (Primata)[edit]
• The largest known primate of all time was Gigantopithecus blackii, standing 3 m (9.8 ft) tall and weighing 540 kilograms (1,200 lb).[31][32][/quote]
Lived about the same time as early H. sapiens. But millions of years ago, primates were the size of rats. So again, your assumption fails.
The first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, evolved in the early Paleocene Epoch (65.5-55.8 million years ago) at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. They were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance. The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (from Asia, Europe, North Africa, and especially Western North America) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet adapted for climbing in trees.
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/earlyprimates/early_2.htm
Horses? From your source...
Unlike the small ice age horse fossils that are common across the unglaciated areas of the Yukon, Alaska and Siberia, and which date to the last hundred thousand years, this fossil was at least the size of a modern domestic horse.
Again, recent horses (there are still a few of that fossil species alive today) are much, much bigger than earlier horses. Are you starting to realize what's going on here?
Giant Fossil Bats Out Of Africa, 35 Million Years Old
Your source says it weighed about a half a pound. The largest bat today weighs about three pounds. Pteropus vampyrus
From your source:
Sivatherium came out "at least as heavy as a heavy large bull giraffe, or as heavy as a common hippo", Hutchinson says, in excess of 3,000 pounds.
So smaller than a giraffe, but bulky. Earlier giraffes were about 5 feet tall. Again, your assumption fails.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 12:52:27Specifically on this verse, what do you understand?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
I understand that within the confines and the context of the Hebrew word "erets", just as I understand the animals of the "erets" that Noah was to bring on board two by two (Gen 6:19-20). I seriously doubt that there were two polar bears, two elephants, two American bison, two South American sloths, two Australian kangaroos, two Congolese mountain Gorillas, two Chinese pandas, two Galapagos giant tortoises, or ........ But perhaps that is just me.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 16:01:19
Specifically on this verse, what do you understand?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Remember the Hebrew word means "land." So it says the "land is filled with violence", and "I will destroy them with the land."
Now it could mean that area, the country, the land known to the Hebrews, and so on. In the absence of any statement that it was worldwide, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was.
Honestly, I could agree to that. These questions arise:
1. What are the land known to the Hebrews (if there were people known as Hebrews then)?
2. In the days of Noah, did God destroyed all flesh on all nations and lands, saved Noah and his family?
3. What do you understand by "destroy" with regards to God destroying them with the earth (land)?
Now, for you too, "eretz" only means land and could not mean the whole mass of land of the planet earth. How then do you understand the verses:
Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.
2 The
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens,
Genesis 14:19 And he blessed him and said: "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and
earthGenesis 18:18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed in him?
And may I invite you to respond to the questions at the bottom part in Reply #788. Thank you.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 16:11:47
1. Do you not believe that God flooded the whole earth in the days of Noah as recorded in the holy scriptures?
As you know, "eretz" means "land", not "the whole world", although it could mean that. Given that God doesn't say that it meant the entire world, we would be adding to scripture to say that it did.
So, it can mean the whole world. That's being honest. The issue then if it means a piece of land or the whole world in Gen. 6:13.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 16:11:47
And what is it to you when it says "destroy" them with the earth in Gen. 6:13?
Abraham came from an area subject to devastating floods, but there is also the great flood that created the Black Sea and covered hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land, including settlments and mountains. And it happened just about the right time. We don't know if this was the actual flood or if it's an allegory. Doesn't matter. If you're focused on that, you'll miss the message.
The flood we are talking about is that which happened at the time of Noah. So, no need to divert to other floods. So, you avoided the question. I wonder why. I asked you the question, not if it matters to you or not. I wanted to know, what you understand by it in you reading of the scriptures.
Are you also suggesting that when the mountains were entirely covered with the flood waters of Noah's time, didn't mean that the global sea level did not rise as much, so that only a portion of the globe, was actually flooded?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 16:11:47
2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in. The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall. There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground. So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs." Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.
So, even while they are figurative, I can understand the figure of speech of "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens. How about the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", what does that mean to you?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 16:11:47
3. And also on Gen.8:1-14, about the wind God made to pass over the earth that caused the waters to subside, of the fountains of the deep being stopped, what do you say the scientist say about this?
Like the others, figurative. Wind doesn't shut off water flow.
I agree. But like all figures of speech, what does "a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided" mean to you? And what does the figure of speech "fountains of the deep being stopped" mean to you?
: 4WD Mon Oct 02, 2017 - 17:12:23
Michael2012 on Yesterday at 12:52:27
Specifically on this verse, what do you understand?
Gen. 6:13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
I understand that within the confines and the context of the Hebrew word "erets", just as I understand the animals of the "erets" that Noah was to bring on board two by two (Gen 6:19-20). I seriously doubt that there were two polar bears, two elephants, two American bison, two South American sloths, two Australian kangaroos, two Congolese mountain Gorillas, two Chinese pandas, two Galapagos giant tortoises, or ........ But perhaps that is just me.
It seems that you take Noah's flood as a mere natural catastrophic event and not some supernatural miraculous event that God performed as was the miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time.
And you also take the bringing in of all kinds of land and air creatures into the ark was also one in the natural sense and no divine hand on that.
What do you understand when God said "I will destroy them with the earth."? With regards all living things, that would mean they all died. How about with regards the "eretz", what does it mean to be "destroyed"?
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 03:47:30It seems that you take Noah's flood as a mere natural catastrophic event and not some supernatural miraculous event that God performed as was the miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time.
I said nothing about it being a mere natural catastrophic event. Just because it is a supernatural flood does not require that it be global not regional. The miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time was definitely regional.
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 03:47:30What do you understand when God said "I will destroy them with the earth."? With regards all living things, that would mean they all died. How about with regards the "eretz", what does it mean to be "destroyed"?
I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
: 4WD Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 07:41:56
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:47:30
What do you understand when God said "I will destroy them with the earth."? With regards all living things, that would mean they all died. How about with regards the "eretz", what does it mean to be "destroyed"?
I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
Pardon me, but the focus of the question is on what it means to be "destroyed". Now, if the answer you gave addresses that, please expound that I may understand what you mean to say by it.
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 09:06:41Pardon me, but the focus of the question is on what it means to be "destroyed". Now, if the answer you gave addresses that, please expound that I may understand what you mean to say by it.
From Dictionary.com:
Destroy
verb (used with object)
1.to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.to put an end to; extinguish.
3.to kill; slay.
4.to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.to defeat completely.
verb (used without object)
6.to engage in destruction.
Or if you prefer, the Hebrew word
shawkhath found in Genesis 6:13:
shaw-khath
A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).
The flood we are talking about is that which happened at the time of Noah. So, no need to divert to other floods.
How do you know, this gigantic flood, that covered a vast area of Asia, as not the flood of Noah? As you know, the Bible does not say the flood is worldwide.
Are you also suggesting that when the mountains were entirely covered with the flood waters of Noah's time, didn't mean that the global sea level did not rise as much
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.
2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?
Barbarian observes:
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in. The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall. There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground. So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs." Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.
So, even while they are figurative, I can understand the figure of speech of "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens. How about the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", what does that mean to you?
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.
: 4WD Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 07:36:00
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:47:30
It seems that you take Noah's flood as a mere natural catastrophic event and not some supernatural miraculous event that God performed as was the miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time.
I said nothing about it being a mere natural catastrophic event. Just because it is a supernatural flood does not require that it be global not regional. The miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time was definitely regional.
I did not say you did. Yes, it does not necessarily follow that because it's supernatural and miraculous, that it should be global and not regional or be regional and not global. But one thing is sure, it is supernatural, it is a miracle, and that it happened. Being a miracle, this can't be explained by scientists, on how it came about and what became of the lands and the remains of all those destroyed after, or do they have a theory that they assert that explains it that you believe? Perhaps you can share what you know what through science have been discovered with regards this biblical event. I guess the Barbarian have something to share to us on this, if at all one could even make a guess.
As for me, in my reading, I understand it to be global in scope, in the sense that, it includes all the lands at that time, where there lives the sinful man that God said He would destroy by flooding the lands with water, in Noah's time. That in all those lands, all flesh were destroyed, all living things in there, so that even the highest mountains were covered with water, so that, no living thing remained on those lands, save those inside Noah's Ark. And that God did that not flood the lands, only by means of heavy and continuous rain from the heavens above for forty days and forty nights, but also together with the welling up of waters from beneath the earth.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 11:12:00
The flood we are talking about is that which happened at the time of Noah. So, no need to divert to other floods.
How do you know, this gigantic flood, that covered a vast area of Asia, as not the flood of Noah? As you know, the Bible does not say the flood is worldwide.
We don't. I believe in the Holy scriptures, and that its author is God. So, whether the scientists points to things they consider evidence that to them proves that there was no global flood, would I listen to them and not listen to God? I believe the Holy scriptures, regardless of what scientists say. If you think that this gigantic flood to be the flood of Noah, it does not mean that the Bible is true because of that, nor does it mean that it is this gigantic flood that covered a vast area of Asia, as the flood of Noah. My conviction is that the Bible is true because its author is God. Period. And the scriptures tells of this flood, as to have destroyed all living things, leaving only Noah and those inside the Ark as to have remained alive. And this flood is not a natural happening as can be explained by any scientist, but was some supernatural miraculous event that God have purposely brought about. Now, if the so-called "evidences" that scientist points to does not add up to a worldwide flood, it does not follow that Noah's flood was not global in scope, nor it follows that it is only regional. We don't get to validate the truth in scriptures with science. Rather, we have the scriptures as that which tells us the truth not only of this physical created universe, but specially, of the truth of the spiritual world and of the Creator of both.
The first few verses of Genesis 1 comes to mind:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the
waters.
3 Then 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 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, "
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus 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. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, "
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into 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 He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
That is the "erets" in the beginning. It came to appear when waters that covers it were gathered into what God called seas. As to what shape and form became of the land by the movement of water in the beginning is unimaginable. This is not far from what the waters of the flood in Noah's time could have done when the waters came to flood the "erets" and when the waters receded from the face of the ground. And unimaginable as it is a supernatural and miraculous work of God, do we expect the scientists to explain and tell us what happened and what the waters have done to the "erets"?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 11:12:00
Are you also suggesting that when the mountains were entirely covered with the flood waters of Noah's time, didn't mean that the global sea level did not rise as much
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.
Is that so? Can you prove that?
I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?
And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 11:12:00
2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?
Barbarian observes:
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in. The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall. There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground. So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs." Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.
Michael...
So, even while they are figurative, I can understand the figure of speech of "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens. How about the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", what does that mean to you?
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.
I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean? Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth, in the same way that the figure of speech "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens above?
Barbarian observes:
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.
Is that so?
Yep. The Black Sea basin isn't very large, compared to the volume of the world's oceans. And the mountains therein are still submerged.
Can you prove that?
I guess I could calculate the relative volumes if you like, but if you take a look at the globe, it's rather obvious.
I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?
Average sea level varies by about 40 cm, depending where you are. Most people figure that since it's all connected, it should all be the same, but it isn't.
And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much?
No. Since it took water to fill the basin and cover those mountains, it would at least in principle,slightly lower the ocean level.
(http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0264817214002839-gr1.jpg)
Barbarian observes:
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.
I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean?
Same thing as "it's raining cats and dogs." Lots of water.
Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth
In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 18:03:42
In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.
But there ARE fountains in the deep spewing water into the seas.
Was it you that was going to show me where i can find the intact "geologic column" in real life?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 17:59:59
Barbarian observes:
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.
Michael...
Is that so?
Yep. The Black Sea basin isn't very large, compared to the volume of the world's oceans. And the mountains therein are still submerged.
Michael...
Can you prove that?
I guess I could calculate the relative volumes if you like, but if you take a look at the globe, it's rather obvious.
So, in other words you can't prove it. All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy. And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up. Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 17:59:59
Michael...
I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?
Average sea level varies by about 40 cm, depending where you are. Most people figure that since it's all connected, it should all be the same, but it isn't.
Michael...
And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much?
No. Since it took water to fill the basin and cover those mountains, it would at least in principle,slightly lower the ocean level.
So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region? Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then? Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey. Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 18:03:42
Barbarian observes:
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.
Michael...
I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean?
Same thing as "it's raining cats and dogs." Lots of water.
Michael...
Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth
In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.
Very evasive. Anyway perhaps I just have to take that for you, the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" does not mean water welling up from beneath the land, and that you don't want to say whatever it means to you. Perhaps you don't believe that water can come from under the ground.
But there ARE fountains in the deep spewing water into the seas.
There are undersea geysers. But not fountains. Seawater trickles down faults to hot rock, and then rises back to the sea, again. Pretty much the way geysers work on the land. Not what you were told they are.
Aquifers are also underground water, but as you know,they wouldn't burst out of the ground, flooding it, either.
Was it you that was going to show me where i can find the intact "geologic column" in real life?
Thought I did... Well once again...
North Dakota:
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet
The Geologic Columnand its Implications for the Flood 2001 Glen Morton
He also lists the following locations where strata exist for every geological period:
Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)
Which is remarkable; you would think there would be no place on Earth where no period had been eroded away, but there you are.
So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region?
I showed you how to calculate the likely change caused by the filling of the Black Sea basin.
Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?
It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all. All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.
Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.
That's a modern misconception. The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey. "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu." And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.
However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.
Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark. But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.
So, in other words you can't prove it.
I can show you that the drop in ocean levels caused by the flood would have been quite small. Do I really have to calculate it for you?
All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy.
It could have been much smaller, depending on how much land God was talking about. It just couldn't be the entire world, because the evidence clearly rules it out. And since there is no scriptural basis for concluding it meant the entire world, we can be quite sure that it wasn't.
And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up.
There are mountains in Armenia, adjoining the Black Sea that would be the likely resting place of the Ark if it actually happened and wasn't an allegory. And since they are the real "mountains of Ararat", that would nicely fit the flood of the Black Sea basin.
Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.
No one actually knows if the Flood story happened literally, or was an allegory. However, we do have flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at the right time and place. So there is that.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:02:46
There are undersea geysers. But not fountains. Seawater trickles down faults to hot rock, and then rises back to the sea, again. Pretty much the way geysers work on the land. Not what you were told they are.
Aquifers are also underground water, but as you know,they wouldn't burst out of the ground, flooding it, either.
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.
show me a picture of the place, anyone can type words
PS: When i say geologic column, i mean the different aged layers WITH the so-called "index fossils".
Remember, if those fossils are found in OTHER layers ANYWHERE, then they are NOT an "index fossil"
i googled one of the places and could find nothing that proves the entire geologic column exists there.
: Michael2012 Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 11:37:16
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.
Those who deny the global flood do so by necessity of their denial of multiple parts of scripture.
The denial is rather selective and follows no cohesive pattern.
- The miracle of the global flood is denied, but other miracles are accepted. No reason is given however why one miracle is different from another
- Usually the global flood is denied because of geological evidence, and on that same basis the accuracy of the creation account is denied
- Death is being declared something that God created, and is therefore good
- The accuracy of the story of the Fall is being denied
- The accuracy of the genealogies is denied
- The references made by Jesus and the apostles to creation and flood are denied
- People get themselves in a twist over what is spiritual and what is natural
- The symbolic meaning of the crucifixion and meaning of the physical death of Jesus is denied
- The bodily presence of Jesus in heaven is denied
and you can go on and on
Those who deny a global flood never ever leave it at that, they always have a whole list of other questionable parts of scripture.
All this originates from the same source: People believe themselves more than that they believe God's Word.
Scientific theories whose only effect is to negate God's involvement or existence are being declared God's contribution to man for a better understanding.
The reliability of scripture is questioned, and science has been crowned king.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:17:10
So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region?
I showed you how to calculate the likely change caused by the filling of the Black Sea basin.
I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin. Please read carefully the question.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:17:10
Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?
It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all. All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.
I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above and from under the ground. I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:17:10
Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.
That's a modern misconception. The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey. "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu." And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.
However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.
I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested. As I've said "Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet."
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:17:10
Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark. But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.
Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory, unless you want it to be as perhaps you would take still other events that could not be explained through science as allegories.
Barbarian...
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark." With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains. Take the highest mountain thereabout and ask your good self, how many feet or meters the peak is above the sea water level. Perhaps around 10,000 ft? Now, that would make of flood waters rising by 10,000 ft from the sea level. How do we picture this as happening and what will the sea level be in different parts of the globe?
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:26:06
So, in other words you can't prove it.
I can show you that the drop in ocean levels caused by the flood would have been quite small. Do I really have to calculate it for you?
Why are you so into the drop in ocean levels when we are talking of a flood that covered even the mountains of Ararat, that implies a huge amount of rise of sea water levels?
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:26:06
All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy.
It could have been much smaller, depending on how much land God was talking about. It just couldn't be the entire world, because the evidence clearly rules it out. And since there is no scriptural basis for concluding it meant the entire world, we can be quite sure that it wasn't.
Well, since you rely and listen to your scientific mind, apparently you conclude as you do, since you point to scientific evidence. This just shows that for you, you don't believe it as a miracle that God have done, but take it to be a mere natural disaster that can be explained therefore by using science. This is a clear example of bible interpretation using science.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:26:06
And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up.
There are mountains in Armenia, adjoining the Black Sea that would be the likely resting place of the Ark if it actually happened and wasn't an allegory. And since they are the real "mountains of Ararat", that would nicely fit the flood of the Black Sea basin.
So? No matter how one goes about this, it does not remove what scriptures said that all the land there, including hills and mountains were covered with water. And that, in all the lands where man is, for scriptures speaks of God destroying all flesh, save Noah and his family.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 04, 2017 - 10:26:06
Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.
No one actually knows if the Flood story happened literally, or was an allegory. However, we do have flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at the right time and place. So there is that.
Then you admit that you don't have faith in the scriptures, that it did happen literally. Perhaps, if you find scientific evidence, then you would believe that it did. That means, your faith somehow depends on scientific evidence.
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, an allegory, and not that which literally happened?
show me a picture of the place, anyone can type words
I cited you two sources, with the precise location of the well where all these layers were found in drilling cores.
PS: When i say geologic column, i mean the different aged layers WITH the so-called "index fossils".
That's what they found in those locations.
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.
So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces? How do you figure that?
i googled one of the places and could find nothing that proves the entire geologic column exists there.
Well, let's see... (Barbarian choses one)
Jiuxi Basin
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jinliang_Huang2/publication/274096962/figure/fig5/AS:269654547496968@1441302062177/Geological-stratigraphic-column-of-Sichuan-Basin-central-China.png)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/274096962_fig5_Geological-stratigraphic-column-of-Sichuan-Basin-central-China
Try googling the location and "complete geologic column. Worked for me.
I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin.
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.
Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?
Barbarian observes:
It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all. All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.
I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above and from under the ground.
Specifically, it says that windows in the sky were opened, and water fell out of them. There aren't actually windows in the sky. Likewise, there aren't actually underground fountains.
I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.
Right. It would have caused a lowering of the Mediterranean, and eventually a small, maybe unnoticeable lowering in the world's oceans.
Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.
That's a modern misconception. The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey. "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu." And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.
However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.
I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested.
Probably a mistake to bring it up, then.
I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above
Through windows in the dome of the sky, it says. There is such dome (raqua) nor are there window. So figure of speech, not a literal discription.
I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.
The flood, if it's a literal history, would have slightly lowered the ocean levels, albeit maybe by an imperceptible amount.
Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level,
Remember that the story doesn't say that the mountains of Ararat were covered. It says the mountains in the land (erets) were covered. And as you see, they were.
which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.
You're assuming that "erets" means "the whole Earth", which it does not.
Barbarian observes:
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark. But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.
Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory,
You could be right, but no one actually knows for sure.
Barbarian observes:
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark."
With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains
Don't see how; it certainly doesn't say so.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 10:39:58
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.
So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces? How do you figure that?
No sir. The argument is that it is a miracle and is a
supernatural event.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin.
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.
That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event and so think that it must have scientific evidence to that effect.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
Specifically, it says that windows in the sky were opened, and water fell out of them. There aren't actually windows in the sky. Likewise, there aren't actually underground fountains.
The point remains that water was said to come from the heavens above and from under the ground.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.
Right. It would have caused a lowering of the Mediterranean, and eventually a small, maybe unnoticeable lowering in the world's oceans.
That would render a picture of the beaches not flooded while the nearby hills and mountains way higher than the beaches to be flooded. Wow!
And this is all because it has to be according to your scientific mind, since you count it not to be a miracle. Noah's Flood was not some flood brought about by the natural forces and laws of nature, as had happened throughout human historical existence, but by the direct doing of God, supernaturally, that is. This is similar to what God supernaturally had done in the beginning with the water, so that dry "erets" appeared:
Genesis 1:9 Then God said, "
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into 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 He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.
Barbarian...
That's a modern misconception. The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey. "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu." And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.
However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.
Michael...
I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested.
Probably a mistake to bring it up, then.
No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds, to have you see the implication of this relative to the sea levels. That for water to flood these very high grounds would have the adjoining sea to have its water level rise to a height over these high grounds.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above
Through windows in the dome of the sky, it says. There is such dome (raqua) nor are there window. So figure of speech, not a literal discription.
It's a figure of speech that was meant to refer to the out pouring of rain from the waters in the heavens. Unless you have a different take on that.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.
The flood, if it's a literal history, would have slightly lowered the ocean levels, albeit maybe by an imperceptible amount.
Only because you don't take Noah's flood as a miracle and take it only as a natural occurrence brought about by the forces of nature.
And as ever, evasion seems to be a favorite refuge.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level,
Remember that the story doesn't say that the mountains of Ararat were covered. It says the mountains in the land (erets) were covered. And as you see, they were.
How can then Noah's ark rest on the mountain? Besides, read what these passages says about the mountains of Ararat.
Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the
high hillsunder the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the
mountains were covered.
Gen. 8
3 And the waters
receded continually from the earth. At the end of the
hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4
Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And
the waters decreased continually until the tenth month.
In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.
You're assuming that "erets" means "the whole Earth", which it does not.
No sir. I'm not.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
Barbarian observes:
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark. But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.
Michael...
Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory,
You could be right, but no one actually knows for sure.
We can be sure sir. One just have to read:
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 11:03:47
Barbarian observes:
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark."
Michael...
With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains
Don't see how; it certainly doesn't say so.
Just read:
Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the
high hillsunder the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the
mountains were covered.
Gen. 8
3 And the waters
receded continually from the earth. At the end of the
hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4
Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And
the waters decreased continually until the tenth month.
In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
Barbarian asks:
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.
So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces? How do you figure that?
No sir.
So if God can use nature to effect His will, what makes you think that He didn't?
The argument is that it is a miracle and is a supernatural event.
The natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event. On what grounds do you suppose that He didn't use nature for this, if you agree that He can?
Barbarian observes:
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.
That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event
No one actually knows, because He doesn't tell us. It could be an allegory, or it could have really happened. But there's no way to know. If you focus on the details, you lose sight of what He was actually telling us.
No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds
Scripture doesn't say that. It only says it came to rest in those mountains. Remember the mountains in the land, from which Noah came were completely covered. But it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered. So the Ark would then come to rest in those mountains outside the land that was flooded.
Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide.
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?
If someone in the Bible cites an allegory, that changes it to a literal event? How so?
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 20:34:22
Michael...
"Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not."
Barbarian....
"So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces? How do you figure that?"
Michael...
"No sir."
Barbarian....
"So if God can use nature to effect His will, what makes you think that He didn't?"
Michael...
"The argument is that it is a miracle and is a supernatural event."
Barbarian....
"The natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event. On what grounds do you suppose that He didn't use nature for this, if you agree that He can?"[/i]
God sure used nature in doing a miracle, and to effect His will. But the very fact that it is a miracle, it means that it is something that is done not in accordance with the set laws and forces of nature. This is why it is
"supernatural".
That's exactly right, the natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event. So, I wonder why scientist keep on trying to explain even that which is a miracle and a supernatural event, such as the beginnings of the universe, life, and man ~ even how things came to be, when he can't even explain why and how water turned into wine, how Jesus walked on water, how the dead are resurrected, how the waters of the Red sea were divided, and many many other miracles of God recorded in the Bible? If I remember it right, haven't you said that the scientist, while he may have a theory about how the natural things that now exist work, through science, he can't explain the miracles of God? Scientist who are unbelievers can't realize this. But the Christian scientist can.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 20:36:42
Barbarian observes:
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.
Michael...
That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event
No one actually knows, because He doesn't tell us. It could be an allegory, or it could have really happened. But there's no way to know. If you focus on the details, you lose sight of what He was actually telling us.
Let me cite just one instance. Did God tell us that when the ground split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods, so they and all those with them went down alive into the pit, the earth closed over them, is a miracle? Yet we know that this is a miracle, and that this literally happened, and is not an allegory or what.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 20:41:04
Michael...
No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds
Scripture doesn't say that. It only says it came to rest in those mountains. Remember the mountains in the land, from which Noah came were completely covered. But it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered. So the Ark would then come to rest in those mountains outside the land that was flooded.
Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide.
Please read again and carefully this time the following passages:
Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the
high hillsunder the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the
mountains were covered.
Gen. 8
3 And the waters
receded continually from the earth. At the end of the
hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4
Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And
the waters decreased continually until the tenth month.
In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
Notice in Genesis 8, Noah's ark is said to now have come to the region of Ararat, and rested in the seventh month in the mountains in that region. At this time, the tops of the mountains, from the view point of Noah were not seen yet, while the waters continue to subside. It was only on the tenth month, that is, after 3 months from the time the ark rested at this point that Noah's ark is said to have rested on one of the mountains of Ararat. This implies that, the ark had rested on the highest mountain in Ararat. So high from the rest of the mountains of Ararat that it took 3 months for the water to subside before the tops of mountains were seen. This clearly refutes the assertion that "it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered".
Barbarian...
"Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide."That is what science or so-called scientific evidence perhaps tell you, but not scriptures. Simply put, because in the findings of scientists, there is no evidence for a world wide flood, and which you rely on in your interpretation of the Noah's flood written in scriptures, that you believe that Noah's flood is not world wide more than what can be read plainly in scriptures that mountains as high as the highest mountain of Ararat was flooded.
More important than the point that it was a world wide flood, another point here that remains is that Noah's flood is a miracle that scientists and science can't explain. It was done at the direct will of God and happened not as a result of the laws and forces of nature but according to the design, decree, and power of God.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 05, 2017 - 20:42:14
Michael...
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?
If someone in the Bible cites an allegory, that changes it to a literal event? How so?
No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.
Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.
I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.
: 4WD Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 07:41:56
I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
What a terrible translation!
"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt
: 4WD Tue Oct 03, 2017 - 07:41:56
I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:
Gen 41:57 The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
What a terrible translation!
"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt.
: KiwiChristian Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 04:45:58What a terrible translation!
"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."
Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt
You are funny KiwiChristian. What the Hebrew says is
And all countries [Hebrew - erets] came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands[Hebrew -erets]. And of course that is the same Hebrew word [i[erets[/i] that was covered by the flood.
No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.
So, if it turns out that the flood story is an allegory, then these other people talking about it, do not change it to a literal history. And since we do not know if it is a literal history or not, the reference means nothing in terms of whether or not it is an allegory.
Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.
I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.
The same as if it was an actual event. Why would it be different? The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion. And of course His promise to keep His people safe.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 14:28:58
The same as if it was an actual event. Why would it be different? The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion. And of course His promise to keep His people safe.
The promise to keep his people safe had some conditions attached. If they failed to follow His commandments there would be consequence's
31And I will pour out my indignation upon you, I will blow against you in the fire of my wrath, and deliver you into the hand of brutal men, skilful to destroy.
32You shall be for fuel to the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.
(:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4qfSlPtgI
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 14:28:58
No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.
So, if it turns out that the flood story is an allegory, then these other people talking about it, do not change it to a literal history. And since we do not know if it is a literal history or not, the reference means nothing in terms of whether or not it is an allegory.
So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative. So you don't know if the flood literally happened or not. On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable. Is it true or not that all but Noah and those in the ark the only ones left alive at that period of time? Is it true or not that God destroyed all flesh at that time? What now becomes of the covenant of God with Noah? Is it a covenant based upon an allegory? Is it true or not that .... and so on...
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 14:28:58
Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.
I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.
The same as if it was an actual event. Why would it be different? The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion. And of course His promise to keep His people safe.
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Please tell me if vv.38-39 is figurative or literal. Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
Please tell me if v.27 is figurative or literal. 2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
Please tell me if v.5 is figurative or literal. 2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Please tell me if v.6 is figurative or literal.
: Amo Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 20:00:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8
For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system. That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.
: 4WD Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 06:33:02
For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system. That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.
My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.
: Alan Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 06:59:42
My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.
Reminds me of Galileo. Right is right no matter how many believe it or not. Radiometric dating is 112 years old.
Our scientific advances on many things are in their infancy. I think the definitive age of the earth will be refined with scientific progress.
: 4WD Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 06:33:02
For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system. That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.
Yea, because numbers are so very important. Just like the bible you claim to believe points out, "wide is the gate, and broad is the path that leads to truth and salvation, and many there be which go in thereat, because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leads unto deception and destruction and few there be that find it", right. The vast majority of all in this world have believed, accepted, and promoted the truth unto salvation, while just a tiny handful have been deceived and promoted the lie. NOT!
Your numbers mean absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is the deceived who rely upon all such as evidence of any truth. We can also go back and examine those hundreds of thousands of sources you speak of over the last century and find one theory after another which today have been proved wrong. Yet those who promoted them were as high-mindedly confident in them as you are here today.
Apart from this, point out the fault in the theories or accusations provided in the videos shared. A blanket ignorant statement about numbers means absolutely nothing.
: Alan Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 06:59:42
My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.
Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.
: 4WD Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 06:33:02
For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system. That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.
Yeah, posting links back an forth achieves nothing.
: Amo Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 20:00:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAXXZ9nNE0A
: 4WD Fri Oct 06, 2017 - 06:37:59
You are funny KiwiChristian. What the Hebrew says is And all countries [Hebrew - erets] came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands[Hebrew -erets]. And of course that is the same Hebrew word [i[erets[/i] that was covered by the flood.
Wrong. The word is "hā·'ā·reṣ"
http://www.icr.org/article/10137/
Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years.......................................
The second surprising result came from scan results between several fundamentally different kinds of plants. They found that specific chemical bond signatures signified the same basic plant kinds. For example, fossil and modern Araucaria had unique chemicals not shared with ginkgos. Lead author Vivi Vajda told Lund University,
"The results from the fossil leaves far exceeded our expectations, not only were they full of organic molecules, they also grouped according to well-established botanical relationships, based on DNA analysis of living plants i.e. Ginkgoes in one group, conifers in another."
So they didn't expect to find original organic molecules after supposed millions of years, nor did they expect to find those same molecules in similar plant kinds. It was as though millions of years of evolution never changed these plants' basic forms or even their basic molecules.
Could ginkgos remain ginkgos and Araucaria remain Araucaria because they have been reproducing faithfully within separately created kinds from the beginning of creation?
The original biomolecules in fossil leaf cuticles point to their deposition thousands of years ago, not millions. Also, biochemical similarities between ancient and modern plants of similar groups show no hint of evolution, but fit just fine with the created kinds of Genesis 1:12.
https://creation.com/gilding-the-sea-lily-crinoid-organic-molecules-mississippian
But not so fast. This ought to be a bombshell to anyone still thinking these fossils could be millions of years old. As the Ohio State University press release said in its introduction, "scientists have long believed that complex organic molecules couldn't survive fossilization"—i.e. that complex organic molecules couldn't survive for millions of years. Yet, bizarrely, researchers O'Malley, Ausich and Chin choose instead to not even question the 350-million-year supposed 'age' of their fossils. Rather they blithely say that their results suggest that "the preservation of diagnostic organic molecules is much more common than previously realized".
The millions-of-years paradigm is wrong, wrong, wrong. These beautifully preserved sea lilies, containing intact species-specific complex organic molecule biomarkers, give testimony to fast processes, not millions of years of slow burial. If only the researchers had stuck to the facts (their own eyewitness testimony), rather than feeling the need to go 'gilding the (sea) lily' with 350 million years worth of evolutionary fairy tale.
Now some might ask how I know that the real age of the sea lily fossils is only around 4,500 years old? Well, let me make a candid admission. In my own strength, I'm pretty sure that I would never in a million years have been able to arrive at that figure. But I'm not writing this in my own strength. That's because God has spoken by His prophets (Hebrews 1:1, 2 Peter 1:20), and we have a record of that—the Bible.
Three whole chapters (Genesis 6–9), plus numerous verses citing them throughout the Bible (e.g. Psalm 104:6–9, Matthew 24:37–39, 1 Peter 3:20), are devoted to the account of the global Flood. This gives us a tremendous 'heads up' in understanding the world's geography, rocks and fossils, and wipes away latter-day human speculations of millions of years.
Such an understanding is available to Christina O'Malley, William Ausich, and Yu-Ping Chin, too, who could then try to undo the damage (Matthew 12:36) they've done through having gilded the sea lily story—if they're game. I say 'game', because for them the academic consequences of proclaiming a biblical thousands-of-years-not-millions timeline in their line of work would likely be fearful indeed.
Witness Expelled and Slaughter of the Dissidents—when even just a hint of a possibility of a Designer is even enough to get evolutionist PhD scientists sacked, it's easy to imagine that any challenge on their 'hero' time would render them apoplectic! It's their line-in-the-sand, the proverbial 'hill' they're willing to die for.
https://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists
https://creation.com/reiss-resigns-as-royal-society-stifles-debate-on-evolution
https://creation.com/slaughter-of-the-dissidents
https://creation.com/time-is-the-hero
https://creation.com/Charge-the-hill
transitional stages?
LOL. no such things
So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative.
Only God knows that. However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East, at the right time. So I'm inclined to think it's not just an allegory.
On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable.
Nope. It would render a lot of people's interpretation of scripture to be questionable, but of course, that's quite a different thing.
I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.
Barbarian observes:
The same as if it was an actual event. Why would it be different? The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion. And of course His promise to keep His people safe.
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
So you're arguing that if scripture mentions an allegory, that makes it a literal history? How so?
transitional stages?
LOL. no such things
Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a form transitional between them.
Very few creationists have taken this test, and so far, no one has succeeded. You might be the first.
Let us know. If you like, pick several such examples.
But not so fast. This ought to be a bombshell to anyone still thinking these fossils could be millions of years old.
In fact, organic molecules millions of years old are well-known from marine invertebrates. No paleontologist is surprised that heme and collagen has been recovered from dinosaur fossils. The claim that was surprising was that tissue had been found. And so far, no one has been able to confirm that truely remarkable claim.
It is known that iron can preserve certain organic molecules for many millions of years. Not surprisingly, iron fixation has been found in all such examples to date.
: Alan Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 05:57:52
Simply put, all complex creatures on this earth are dependent on microbiome for their very existence. The study of microbiota is more of a support for evolution than an argument against since microbes are shown to evolve rapidly with environmental changes (our bodies). Did you know that the human body has over a trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies, most of which are crucial to our existence?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848870/
So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 22:45:40
So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative.
Only God knows that. However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East, at the right time. So I'm inclined to think it's not just an allegory.
An God had told us what He knows about that. But it seems you don't and can't believe what He told us about what He did with all flesh save Noah and all those with him in the ark and with the earth, unless you have scientific evidence and explanation how it could have happened.
So, tell me what then is it to you more than it is an allegory? That it is real? And you are just waiting for scientific evidence and explanation so that you will believe that it is a real event that took place? Or that, you believe it is a real event yet only regional because so far that is what science seems to convict you? Well, if one's faith depends on what science seems to convict him, then there goes his faith relative to scriptures.
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 22:45:40
On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable.
Nope. It would render a lot of people's interpretation of scripture to be questionable, but of course, that's quite a different thing.
So, in your take of the Noah's flood, as a Christian, kindly share to us your take on the following questions among many more:
1. Is it true or not that all but Noah and those in the ark the only ones left alive at that period of time?
2. Is it true or not that God destroyed all flesh at that time?
3. Did Noah actually built the ark or not?
4. What now becomes of the covenant of God with Noah? Is it a covenant based upon an allegory?
5. Does the rainbow has any meaning to the Jew and the Christian regarding the flood, if the flood were just a figure of an allegory?
Barbarian observes:
The same as if it was an actual event. Why would it be different? The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion. And of course His promise to keep His people safe.
michael...
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
So you're arguing that if scripture mentions an allegory, that makes it a literal history? How so?
I had already answered that in Reply #840:
No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.
In addition to that, we find that in scriptures, most often if not all the time, when true events are taken as a figure in as passage, that is, as an allegory, the writer makes it a point to put this on the clear, that it is used symbolically. This does not at all make the referenced literal events to cease to be real events. An example is that of the two sons of Abraham (Gal. 4).
So, why do I get the impression that you find it difficult to answer my simple queries:
1. Matthew 24:37-39, please tell me if vv.38-39 is figurative or literal.
2. Luke 17:26-28, please tell me if v.27 is figurative or literal.
3. 2 Peter 2:4-6, please tell me if v.5 is figurative or literal.
4. 2 Peter 3:5-7, please tell me if v.6 is figurative or literal.
: KiwiChristian Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 12:55:08Wrong. The word is "hā·'ā·reṣ"
Actually the word is "ארץ" which is transliterated in English as "erets" and is translated as the following:
H776ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
But no matter. The point is that it is the same word used in describing both the flood of Noah and the famine of Joseph.
: Amo Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 08:48:00
Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.
If I were to truly believe your stance as written above, then that would gain full respect from myself and I presume others here, but the continuous gish galosh of YouTube videos attempting to justify your belief through pseudo science just shows that you are an equal partner in deceit, if in fact you believe we (OWC) are all deceived.
: KiwiChristian Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 01:18:25
So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?
No reason for the microbes to evolve, they are thriving and doing their job perfectly to this day, that is how God created complex lifeforms, to be dependant on other organisms for life itself.
: Amo Sat Oct 07, 2017 - 08:48:00
Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.
You make light of the human brain. Yet it is perhaps the single greatest entity in all of God's physical creation. He gave you a brain. You should use it. You deride the brain seeks to understand God's creation [God's general revelation] as though that is somehow less than the brain that seeks to understand the meaning of God's word [God's special revelation]. Your understanding of the written revelation is not in the least superior to another's understanding of the general revelation; and may even be perhaps considerably inferior.
: Alan Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 07:15:40
If I were to truly believe your stance as written above, then that would gain full respect from myself and I presume others here, but the continuous gish galosh of YouTube videos attempting to justify your belief through pseudo science just shows that you are an equal partner in deceit, if in fact you believe we (OWC) are all deceived.
Of course, we all know the bible says that those who believe God's word are deceived, and those who know better than God's word are the enlightened saved. Those who listen to Jesus, Moses, and other prophets are of course totally deceived for believing them over the "scientists" of today. All should understand that when Jesus said "
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.",He meant the mouth of todays "scientists". Who are of course God. Who else could they be, they now exactly how it all happened up to millions and even billions of years ago. Who could have such great depth of knowledge and insight save God alone.
2 Tim 3:3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Who is a boaster, or proud, heady and high-minded above those who think they know and understand our beginnings better than the word of God? Presuming to know what took place over hundreds of millions and billions of years because of their puny, heady, and high-minded opinion of themselves and their superior intellect and knowledge as they view themselves. Who denies the power of God more than those who deny His act of creation recorded in His word, and the judgment of the flood upon all of humanity recorded by the same? You are specifically identified by prophetic scripture concerning the last days.
2 Pet 2:2 But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;2 Pet 3:3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first,
that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Turn from self confidence brother, and rely upon the truth of God's word. Have faith in the word of God above and beyond the observations of self loving and prideful fallen humanity.
: 4WD Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 07:59:32
You make light of the human brain. Yet it is perhaps the single greatest entity in all of God's physical creation. He gave you a brain. You should use it. You deride the brain seeks to understand God's creation [God's general revelation] as though that is somehow less than the brain that seeks to understand the meaning of God's word [God's special revelation]. Your understanding of the written revelation is not in the least superior to another's understanding of the general revelation; and may even be perhaps considerably inferior.
Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.The condition of sin is a disease of the mind. The only cure is the truth of God's word and submission to it. All the rest is delusional insanity. The imaginings and speculations of self loving, self important and deluded sinners. This is the condition of all humanity apart from the guiding influence and effect of the truth recorded in God's written word.
: Amo Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 08:46:07
Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
The condition of sin is a disease of the mind. The only cure is the truth of God's word and submission to it. All the rest is delusional insanity. The imaginings and speculations of self loving, self important and deluded sinners. This is the condition of all humanity apart from the guiding influence and effect of the truth recorded in God's written word.
Such ignorance !! Fully understanding the function of gravity is what keeps one from jumping out of a window of a high rise building. Explaining gravity from a scientific point of view makes gravity no less important. And having understood it from a scientific point of view does not keep one from understanding God's word. But of course you are dead set against any such understanding. You would prefer to remain in the scientific ignorance of those very same people to whom God spoke Isaiah 1:4-6. A really sad day for God, I am sure.
: 4WD Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 08:56:43
Such ignorance !! Fully understanding the function of gravity is what keeps one from jumping out of a window of a high rise building. Explaining gravity from a scientific point of view makes gravity no less important. And having understood it from a scientific point of view does not keep one from understanding God's word. But of course you are dead set against any such understanding. You would prefer to remain in the scientific ignorance of those very same people to whom God spoke Isaiah 1:4-6. A really sad day for God, I am sure.
More sheer folly. Equating the observable science of demonstrating the law of gravity before our very eyes, with the guess work of what supposedly took place over completely unobservable countless millions and billions of years. Which guess work is constantly being revised and corrected from previous mistakes which were boastfully believed in their time and used to prove false claims and ridicule those who disagreed. Of course, you are better than those people spoken of in Isa 1:4-6 aren't you?
kjjkjjj
We are decedents of space traveler's; not monkeys
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans have been humans since making our first step on this planet.
Earth was formed 4.543 billion years ago
The earth was covered entirely in ice 2.6 million years ago (the climate change debate is over)
Homo sapiens first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.
It was not evolution that transformed us into what we are today, it was the seed of life that visitors "planted" on this planet.
Some far off day we will be seeders too
We are aliens on our own planet.
Just as we will do on another soon to be a life supporting planet in our near future.
Are we aliens on our own planet?
Are they going to say hello?
Or maybe they already have.,...,.,[-]?
(:-
So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
: 4WD Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 06:57:47
Actually the word is "ארץ" which is transliterated in English as "erets" and is translated as the following:
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
But no matter. The point is that it is the same word used in describing both the flood of Noah and the famine of Joseph.
Wrong.
the word is הָאָ֙רֶץ֙
You are right that the word IS used in both instances.
However, the word has more than one meaning.
It does not mean that the same, singular meaning is used in both instances.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 16:02:26
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
That is loaded with a false presupposition.
So, how did the microbes exist outside of the termite?
Barbarian observes:
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
That is loaded with a false presupposition.
Nope. Would you like to learn about the evidence for termites evolving from wood roaches? It includes genetics, homologies, and of course, a transitional form between the two. If you like, we can talk about them.
So, how did the microbes exist outside of the termite?
In wood roaches. Primitive termites depend on eukaryotic symbionts, as wood roaches do. More advanced termites depend on prokaryotic (bacteria-like) endosymbionts.
Would you like to learn about those?
Equating the observable science of demonstrating the law of gravity before our very eyes, with the guess work of what supposedly took place over completely unobservable countless millions and billions of years.
Actually, evolutionary theory is more certain than gravitational theory. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't certain why gravity works.
Which guess work is constantly being revised and corrected from previous mistakes
Creationists can never decide whether:
1. scientists have locked themselves into a theory that cannot be challenged
2. scientists are constantly upgrading and improving the theory as time goes on.
Hint: it's #2. Probably seems like cheating to creationists, who are locked into their man-made belief system. But gravitational theory has undergone revisions as well. That's how science works.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 20:59:55
Barbarian observes:
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
Nope. Would you like to learn about the evidence for termites evolving from wood roaches? It includes genetics, homologies, and of course, a transitional form between the two. If you like, we can talk about them.
Did this mythical "transitional fossil" show the microbes?
In wood roaches. Primitive termites depend on eukaryotic symbionts, as wood roaches do. More advanced termites depend on prokaryotic (bacteria-like) endosymbionts.
how did they survive outside the wood roaches?
I believe in Christ and believe in creation the world and heaven. So will leave it at that.
: Jean74 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 00:10:53
I believe in Christ and believe in creation the world and heaven. So will leave it at that.
And that at Noah's time, God
destroyed all flesh with the earth by a flood so that no land is not flooded and no living thing have any land to go to and escape the waters, save Noah and those with him in the ark.
Some Christian scientists can't believe this because they have confidence in science. And with their scientific mindset, they find themselves taking the word of God to be true or interpret it somehow with science on the top. It must be the other way around. That the Christian scientists must start with the truth of scriptures and see and experience life in this light rather than with that of scientific knowledge.
With regards then to the Noah's flood, I think these Christian scientists fail to realize that God destroyed even the earth with such unimaginable catastrophic flood waters coming from above and beneath that rendered the original earth, spoiled to the degree that the earth as it was after the flood, had become a spoiled scientific sample of the original in their quest for knowledge of the origins of it, with which they have based their so-called evolution theories.
We must not also forget that science is all guesswork relative to the definite truths laid out and revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures.
It has been impressed that by science, life gets better with science knowledge. In a very limited sense, it is. But the moment the christian is deceived into believing that science makes life better in the general sense as though a good life depends on it, he is driven farther away rather than closer to God in whom alone we have life, life that is way far beyond better than what the blessed christians may be experiencing today, and will have yet to experience in God's time.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 01:39:09
And that at Noah's time, God destroyed all flesh with the earth by a flood so that no land is not flooded and no living thing have any land to go to and escape the waters, save Noah and those with him in the ark.
Some Christian scientists can't believe this because they have confidence in science. And with their scientific mindset, they find themselves taking the word of God to be true or interpret it somehow with science on the top. It must be the other way around. That the Christian scientists must start with the truth of scriptures and see and experience life in this light rather than with that of scientific knowledge.
With regards then to the Noah's flood, I think these Christian scientists fail to realize that God destroyed even the earth with such unimaginable catastrophic flood waters coming from above and beneath that rendered the original earth, spoiled to the degree that the earth as it was after the flood, had become a spoiled scientific sample of the original in their quest for knowledge of the origins of it, with which they have based their so-called evolution theories.
We must not also forget that science is all guesswork relative to the definite truths laid out and revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures.
It has been impressed that by science, life gets better with science knowledge. In a very limited sense, it is. But the moment the christian is deceived into believing that science makes life better in the general sense as though a good life depends on it, he is driven farther away rather than closer to God in whom alone we have life, life that is way far beyond better than what the blessed christians may be experiencing today, and will have yet to experience in God's time.
I just wonder through how many hoops science wants God to jump before anything that's stated clearly will be accepted as such.
Its just like you can hear the Serpent in the Garden again.
God said:
"You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."Well, more clear that that God could not have said it.
But the Serpent said:
"Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" and
"You will not certainly die,"In other words; God must be mistaken, it doesn't really mean what you think He said.
The evolution theory and whatever reduction scientists come up with is exactly the same.
God said:
"I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."But science says:
"Nah, God didn't really mean the whole earth or all humans and animals, God only meant part of the earth and part of life"And I just wonder, what does God have to do to get His message across? It seems to me that it really doesn't matter how simple or complicated God states things. If we want we can always find some excuse to argue that God wasn't clear enough.
Such hate and mistrust. I can only assume that Michael and AVZ both must have been beaten up or severely mistreated as little kids by some scientists living in their neighborhoods. Or maybe they flunked all of the science classes in school.
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 06:56:55
Such hate and mistrust. I can only assume that Michael and AVZ both must have been beaten up or severely mistreated as little kids by some scientists living in their neighborhoods. Or maybe they flunked all of the science classes in school.
No hate there whatsoever 4WD. It's simply the truth of God's words in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 07:29:58No hate there whatsoever 4WD. It's simply the truth of God's words in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists.
It must be hate. There is no word in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists. There is word by some Christians against scientific theories, but most of those are by Christians having little to no real training and understanding in the sciences, and perhaps not nearly so much as they think in the meaning of the Scriptures.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 07:29:58
It's simply the truth of God's words in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists.
It's very clearly a lack of knowledge combined with vincible ignorance that fuels your narrative. It's okay though Michael, you're not alone. There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be
false in order to keep the word of God as
I believe it to be".
: Alan Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 08:00:01
It's very clearly a lack of knowledge combined with vincible ignorance that fuels your narrative. It's okay though Michael, you're not alone. There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be".
it is a sad moment when the Atheist realizes he has lost the debate and moves, in desperation, into the Kill the Messenger Mode, not pretty to see such weakness.
: th1b.taylor Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 09:40:00
it is a sad moment when the Atheist realizes he has lost the debate and moves, in desperation, into the Kill the Messenger Mode, not pretty to see such weakness.
Which atheist is that?
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 07:46:30
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:29:58
No hate there whatsoever 4WD. It's simply the truth of God's words in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists.
It must be hate. There is no word in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists. There is word by some Christians against scientific theories, but most of those are by Christians having little to no real training and understanding in the sciences, and perhaps not nearly so much as they think in the meaning of the Scriptures.
If you see that as hate, hate then it is to you. As for me, I don't see as hate, the pointing out to the Christian scientists, who only believes an understanding of scriptures that scientific knowledge and theories agrees with, or when it is backed up by scientific evidence, that he should not forget where he is coming from. That he has begun in the spirit and should continue in the spirit, and be taught by the spirit, and live according to the spirit, and not fall back into his former self who was in the flesh, as to continue in the flesh, be taught by the flesh, and live according to the flesh. To remind him of this, to me, is love, not hate.
Scriptures sure has no word against scientific theories by scientists. But what are these theories? Are they not meant to accomplish, or to try to give an explanation of how things in the natural world work through human intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and observation and repeated experimentation? And scientists (not all for sure), specially organized scientists, by "science" then and their accomplishment or so called discoveries, they think and are naturally puffed up, even to the point of thinking that some day, the intelligence of man will get to the bottom of all these things, ultimately attaining to a far superior knowledge than what man currently now have by means of science. They impress upon the world that this is all for the good of humanity. Does not scientists dream and aims at going beyond the heavens above? And for what?
This comes to mind. In ancient times, sometime after the Noah's flood, it came to pass, the people said one to another, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens, let us make a name for ourselves lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." This is nothing compare to the intelligence and knowledge of man today. Yet, the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." The Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
Man must know and not go beyond the boundaries that God have placed them in. One of these boundaries is earth. God does not want us to go to the moon, mars or anywhere beyond earth. As can be seen in the story above, God stopped them. As to why, I leave it as a thought for us to ponder about.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by "Christians" holding a view of things similar to yours.
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 12:06:45
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by "Christians" holding a view of things similar to yours.
According to wikipedia:
Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition
on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's
pantheism was also a matter of grave concern,[4] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (
reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.
What similarity?
: Alan Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 08:00:01
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:29:58
It's simply the truth of God's words in scriptures against scientific theories by scientists.
It's very clearly a lack of knowledge combined with vincible ignorance that fuels your narrative. It's okay though Michael, you're not alone. There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be".
Here' a biblical story that is relevant to man's knowledge. In ancient times, sometime after the Noah's flood, it came to pass, the people said one to another, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens, let us make a name for ourselves lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." This is nothing compared to the intelligence and knowledge of man today. Yet, the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." The Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
There is a so called language of science, with all the scientific terms and all that the ordinary man do not understand. And apparently they are one and apparently nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them, just like the people in the story. They think and are naturally puffed up, even to the point of thinking that some day, the intelligence of man will get to the bottom of all these things, ultimately attaining to a far superior knowledge than what man currently now have by means of science. They impress upon the world that this is all for the good of humanity. Do they not dream and aims at going beyond the heavens above? And for what?
They clearly are going beyond the boundaries that God have set for man. One of these boundaries is earth. God does not want man to go to the moon, Mars or anywhere beyond earth. As can be seen in the story above, God stopped them.
God created all of creation. That by itself is more than sufficient to know and grasp of the power and intelligence of God, that we need to spend our time trying to find out how God did it. Besides, we will all fail in doing so.
Ecclesiates 3:9-11
9
What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? 10 I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also
He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.Alan...
"There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be."Alan, I don't hold the philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be
false in order to keep the word of God as
I believe it to be".
We don't need science to know that when a stone is thrown up in the air that it will fall back to the ground. We don't need science to know that the birds can fly, that man can't breath in water, that a seed grows to be a plant in time, etc. We know as we see, observe, and experience things. How can these things be false? What in one's life is seen, observed, and experienced by the person is known to him and regard them as truth. The problem with man is when he attempts, by science, to see and observe the not observable, something which is obviously impossible for man to do. So he guesses and try to work its way by scientific methods, until he convinces himself and make conclusions. Yet it remains, the scientist does not and cannot know the not observable things by whatever he does, even science.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 13:13:04
Yet it remains, the scientist does not and cannot know the not observable things by whatever he does, even science.
Ever hear of an electron?
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 12:59:41
According to wikipedia:
Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern,[4] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.
What similarity?
You need to read a little more than the first paragraph of the article in Wikipedia. If you did you would find that his major "crime" was holding a view of the universe, specifically that the sun did not revolve around the earth, that the Catholic Church found counter to what they thought the Bible said. They were wrong.
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 16:49:20
You need to read a little more than the first paragraph of the article in Wikipedia. If you did you would find that his major "crime" was holding a view of the universe, specifically that the sun did not revolve around the earth, that the Catholic Church found counter to what they thought the Bible said. They were wrong.
What is your point in bringing up the life of Giordano Bruno, his condemnation by the Catholic church?
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 16:39:20
Ever hear of an electron?
Why do you asked?
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 21:43:25
What is your point in bringing up the life of Giordano Bruno, his condemnation by the Catholic church?
4WD wants to make a point that Christians killed people who they thought were wrong about interpretation of scripture, when in fact they themselves were wrong.
The argument makes as much sense as saying that since the general acceptance of Darwin's Evolution some 100 years ago, more people have been massacred by those who believe in evolution than in the past 2000 years of church history.
To be correct, the biggest slaughter has yet to come. That what is described in Revelation.
I bet you all those who will do the persecution and killing will be evolutionists.
: AVZ Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 04:59:36
4WD wants to make a point that Christians killed people who they thought were wrong about interpretation of scripture, when in fact they themselves were wrong.
And that is indeed true.
The argument makes as much sense as saying that since the general acceptance of Darwin's Evolution some 100 years ago, more people have been massacred by those who believe in evolution than in the past 2000 years of church history.
That may be true. However they weren't murdered because they didn't believe in evolution.
To be correct, the biggest slaughter has yet to come. That what is described in Revelation.
I bet you all those who will do the persecution and killing will be evolutionists.
That may or may not be true; but that has nothing to do with evolution or the reason for the persecution and killing. Your statements are a non sequitur.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 13:13:04
It's very clearly a lack of knowledge combined with vincible ignorance that fuels your narrative. It's okay though Michael, you're not alone. There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be".
Here' a biblical story that is relevant to man's knowledge. In ancient times, sometime after the Noah's flood, it came to pass, the people said one to another, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens, let us make a name for ourselves lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." This is nothing compared to the intelligence and knowledge of man today. Yet, the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." The Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
There is a so called language of science, with all the scientific terms and all that the ordinary man do not understand. And apparently they are one and apparently nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them, just like the people in the story. They think and are naturally puffed up, even to the point of thinking that some day, the intelligence of man will get to the bottom of all these things, ultimately attaining to a far superior knowledge than what man currently now have by means of science. They impress upon the world that this is all for the good of humanity. Do they not dream and aims at going beyond the heavens above? And for what?
They clearly are going beyond the boundaries that God have set for man. One of these boundaries is earth. God does not want man to go to the moon, Mars or anywhere beyond earth. As can be seen in the story above, God stopped them.
God created all of creation. That by itself is more than sufficient to know and grasp of the power and intelligence of God, that we need to spend our time trying to find out how God did it. Besides, we will all fail in doing so.
Ecclesiates 3:9-11
9 What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? 10 I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
Alan...
"There are obviously many that have adopted a philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be."
Alan, I don't hold the philosophy that "what is seen and observed must be false in order to keep the word of God as I believe it to be".
We don't need science to know that when a stone is thrown up in the air that it will fall back to the ground. We don't need science to know that the birds can fly, that man can't breath in water, that a seed grows to be a plant in time, etc. We know as we see, observe, and experience things. How can these things be false? What in one's life is seen, observed, and experienced by the person is known to him and regard them as truth. The problem with man is when he attempts, by science, to see and observe the not observable, something which is obviously impossible for man to do. So he guesses and try to work its way by scientific methods, until he convinces himself and make conclusions. Yet it remains, the scientist does not and cannot know the not observable things by whatever he does, even science.
Again, in a roundabout way you are purporting that scientists have a goal to defy God and prove the bible as false, that isn't true at all, the majority of scientists are simply doing their job without the thought of creation, deities, or spirituality.
: Alan Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 08:29:00
the majority of scientists are simply doing their job without the thought of creation, deities, or spirituality.
And that's exactly the problem
: AVZ Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:08:32
And that's exactly the problem
Not at all, their studies should be completely devoid of any influence other than the facts presented by said studies.
If we stop doing research to confirm our beliefs and look for information that expands our minds, we all may learn a thing or two, that includes our bible studies.
: Alan Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 08:29:00
Again, in a roundabout way you are purporting that scientists have a goal to defy God and prove the bible as false, that isn't true at all, the majority of scientists are simply doing their job without the thought of creation, deities, or spirituality.
I am not at all saying nor implying that scientists have a goal to defy God and prove the bible as false. What I was saying is that science apparently lead humankind to: 1) being puffed up in the knowledge of things and nature, 2) think that man will evolve to having a far superior knowledge than what man currently now have by means of science, 3) impress upon the world that what they convinced themselves which is called scientific knowledge is all for the good of humanity, 4) think that we can fulfill our hopes and dreams through the knowledge of science.
Intentionally or not, this is where science leads humankind. It molds the mind of man, that conditions his thinking into the things mentioned above. And the world do so even at the early learning age of man. This send out the wrong message to man that projects man to somehow can become less dependent on God, or altogether come to believe that there is no God or think of God as something that God is not as revealed in the Holy Bible, as to be some impersonal force or energy, or what.
: Alan Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:24:57
If we stop doing research to confirm our beliefs and look for information that expands our minds, we all may learn a thing or two, that includes our bible studies.
Do we need to confirm our faith by scientific research? I don't think that should be. For the testimony written in the scriptures confirms the very faith we Christians have in God, even the HS that dwells in the children of God.
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:36:56Do we need to confirm our faith by scientific research? I don't think that should be. For the testimony written in the scriptures confirms the very faith we Christians have in God, even the HS that dwells in the children of God.
Just another post that shows that you do not understand what faith is are how one comes to a faith in God. The Scriptures do not confirm our faith in God. The Scriptures present the evidence by which we develop our faith in God.
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:36:56
Do we need to confirm our faith by scientific research? I don't think that should be. For the testimony written in the scriptures confirms the very faith we Christians have in God, even the HS that dwells in the children of God.
You missed the point, which was that we have a tendency to do research to confirm our already existent beliefs, whatever they may be;
The Bible, God's nature, Science, politics, etc, etc.
: 4WD Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:59:26
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:36:56
Do we need to confirm our faith by scientific research? I don't think that should be. For the testimony written in the scriptures confirms the very faith we Christians have in God, even the HS that dwells in the children of God.
Just another post that shows that you do not understand what faith is are how one comes to a faith in God. The Scriptures do not confirm our faith in God. The Scriptures present the evidence by which we develop our faith in God.
No 4WD. It's another post that shows that we differ in understanding of what faith is and how one gets to have faith in God.
You say that Scriptures do not confirm your faith in God. What then confirms your faith in God?
You say that the Scriptures present the evidence by which we develop our faith in God. If that is so, does not Scriptures then, being the evidence of what faith you supposedly have developed in God, confirms your faith in God?
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 11:26:22You say that Scriptures do not confirm your faith in God. What then confirms your faith in God?
I do. How, you might ask. By what I say and do.
That you do not understand that just shows one more time you do not understand what faith is.
: 4WD Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 11:31:47
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:26:22
You say that Scriptures do not confirm your faith in God. What then confirms your faith in God?
I do. How, you might ask. By what I say and do.
That you do not understand that just shows one more time you do not understand what faith is.
What you say and do shows your faith, whether it is in God or not. It does in a sense confirm it, but only if such were in keeping with the will of God written in Scriptures.
An going back to my point relative to this thread, in my comment to Alan's post, we need not confirm our faith by scientific research.
: Alan Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 11:21:20
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:36:56
Do we need to confirm our faith by scientific research? I don't think that should be. For the testimony written in the scriptures confirms the very faith we Christians have in God, even the HS that dwells in the children of God.
You missed the point, which was that we have a tendency to do research to confirm our already existent beliefs, whatever they may be; The Bible, God's nature, Science, politics, etc, etc.
But that only implies that what belief we currently have, including that with regards to what Bible says, is still with some amount of doubt. I find this to be contrary to faith, to what faith is.
: 4WD Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 11:31:47
I do. How, you might ask. By what I say and do.
That you do not understand that just shows one more time you do not understand what faith is.
So the mormon, JW, muslim also has faith in their God.
Which God is real?
: Alan Tue Oct 10, 2017 - 10:24:57
Not at all, their studies should be completely devoid of any influence other than the facts presented by said studies.
And again, that is the problem. A fool can look at the sky and say: "see there is no God!"
If what you say is true, then you should also adopt the scientific fact that the resurrection never happened.
As a Christian, how can you ever claim that a correct study must be devoid of any influence other than the facts presented by said studies?
: AVZ Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 05:07:29
And again, that is the problem. A fool can look at the sky and say: "see there is no God!"
If what you say is true, then you should also adopt the scientific fact that the resurrection never happened.
As a Christian, how can you ever claim that a correct study must be devoid of any influence other than the facts presented by said studies?
Your logic is flawed, first of all, I never said that one should conduct research to prove the lack of a creator or otherwise, just the data and facts, the origins of which are left to the believer.
I can look to the clouds, study their formation, composition, purpose, history, forecasts, etc, and make conclusions based on the collected data.
I cannot study the resurrection or any other "miracles" of the bible, I cannot prove them nor disprove them, but of course as you also believe, these miracles have ceased to exist in this day and age.
Lastly, if you presented a paper in University that showed unsupported bias, you would fail.
4WD wants to make a point that Christians killed people who they thought were wrong about interpretation of scripture, when in fact they themselves were wrong.
The argument makes as much sense as saying that since the general acceptance of Darwin's Evolution some 100 years ago, more people have been massacred by those who believe in evolution than in the past 2000 years of church history.
Since the general acceptance of electricity, more people have been massacred by those who believe in electricity than in the past 2000 years of church history.
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
: KiwiChristian Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 00:18:47
So the mormon, JW, muslim also has faith in their God.
Which God is real?
To them, the god that they believe in, that is where they place
their faith.
: Alan Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 10:43:46
To them, the god that they believe in, that is where they place their faith.
So, it doesnt matter WHICH God you have faith in, so long as you have faith?
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 09:33:08
Since the general acceptance of electricity, more people have been massacred by those who believe in electricity than in the past 2000 years of church history.
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
That is a stupid comariso and you know that, you're not uneducated.
: KiwiChristian Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 14:42:54
So, it doesnt matter WHICH God you have faith in, so long as you have faith?
To me it matters since I believe the God of Abraham to be the one true God, but to them that believe that their god is the one true god, then that is where their faith would be. Maybe you're confusing faith with some kind of God given gift, it isn't, faith is a genuine characteristic of humanity.
: 4WD Mon Oct 09, 2017 - 12:06:45
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by "Christians" holding a view of things similar to yours.
LOL.
They were CATHOLICS, not CHRISTIANS. There is a difference.
If the flood is make-believe, why is there a village near the mountains of ararat called "The village of eight" with the remains of noahs ark nereby?
: KiwiChristian Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 02:40:26
LOL.
They were CATHOLICS, not CHRISTIANS. There is a difference.
Shame on you ! !
: KiwiChristian Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 02:42:44
If the flood is make-believe, why is there a village near the mountains of ararat called "The village of eight" with the remains of noahs ark nereby?
Who said it was make believe? Your post is make believe.
I know from experience and having lived the first forty-years of my life as an Atheist and about half of that was sheer rebellion because and I sinned as much as I could manage had called me 1966 and I did not submit until 1990. First of all, let me assure you that I have not your Salvation in my control but I do know the One that does and He says except you believe as a small child you will not enter into Heaven. That is a thing to be wary of, I think.
God had Genesis 1-3 recorded just the way He did it and the claim that the Hebrew, could, mean a Day Age is about as weak an dispute as I have ever heard! Today we would do that but the man, Moses, that God inspired to write the record was not a twenty-first century, sophisticated, man, he was not much better than his kin and their mates and they were as rough as any Construction worker of today. I mean, look at them through the lens od the Old Testament, the Bible Jesus, Paul and the other disciples taught from.
God said, by the word He used in the Hebrew, that He created the World and all that surrounds our Universe in six twenty-four hour days. And Jesus, the Creator, said except you believe as a small child, you will not enter into Heaven and we all what the default to heaven is, and nobody wants that.
One poster here loves to use a fly as an example to ¿prove? Evolution and that is nonsense and any man, woman or child that is filled with the Holy Spirit knows it is.Declaring otherwise is a sin against the Father and except you repent of it before you expire has consequences that none of us desire.
All I can say is repent!
: th1b.taylor Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 09:04:35
Evolution and that is nonsense and any man, woman or child that is filled with the Holy Spirit knows it is.Declaring otherwise is a sin against the Father and except you repent of it before you expire has consequences that none of us desire.
All I can say is repent!
A sin? I hardly think so, I also think you're completely out of line suggesting that YOUR opinion is the way to salvation. You are sadly deluded by a religious spirit if that is your stance.
: Alan Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 09:18:32A sin? I hardly think so, I also think you're completely out of line suggesting that YOUR opinion is the way to salvation. You are sadly deluded by a religious spirit if that is your stance.
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
It is a sad day indeed when one begins to think that any interpretation of Scripture that differs from his own is a sin. After all, that was the Pharisees and the Sadducees thought and we know what Jesus thought of them and their interpretations.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 08, 2017 - 16:02:26
So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
Speaking of microbes, if I'm not mistaken, science says microbes may be single-celled or a cluster of cells. And with regards single-celled microbes, also called unicellular organism, do they have a brain?
: Michael2012 Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 11:36:04
Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.
Speaking of microbes, if I'm not mistaken, science says microbes may be single-celled or a cluster of cells. And with regards single-celled microbes, also called unicellular organism, do they have a brain?
yeah, the single cell and cluster of cells are still the same thing. cells.
we dont observe them evolving into a different kind.
4WD wants to make a point that Christians killed people who they thought were wrong about interpretation of scripture, when in fact they themselves were wrong.
The argument makes as much sense as saying that since the general acceptance of Darwin's Evolution some 100 years ago, more people have been massacred by those who believe in evolution than in the past 2000 years of church history.
Barbarian observes:
Since the general acceptance of electricity, more people have been massacred by those who believe in electricity than in the past 2000 years of church history.
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
That is a stupid comariso and you know that, you're not uneducated.
They were both stupid. I think that was his point. Forgot my WFTH-I, again. Sorry about that.
I think 4WD's original point was a good one, though.
: Alan Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 10:43:46
To them, the god that they believe in, that is where they place their faith.
I didnt ask what is the the God TO THEM.
: Alan Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 21:31:59
To me it matters since I believe the God of Abraham to be the one true God,
But muslims and mormons say the SAME thing.
Who is right and WHY?
: KiwiChristian Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 23:07:17But muslims and mormons say the SAME thing.
Who is right and WHY?
I would certainly hope that is a rhetorical question and you know the answer.
: KiwiChristian Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 23:07:17
But muslims and mormons say the SAME thing.
Who is right and WHY?
If we're still talking about faith here, then the muslim and mormon are correct in having faith to their god, and rightfully so. Why is that so difficult to understand? This is not a question of biblical principals, it's purely a question of logic.
Maybe KiwiChristian's question was not rhetorical and he really doesn't know why he believes as he does.
None of us perfectly understand God, who surpasses any human understanding. It seems entirely contrary to everything Jesus taught us and demonstrated for us in His own life, to deny the faith of others because we see faults in their understanding of Him.
Let us be humble enough to admit that we all fall short of understanding Him.
It is not necessary to fully understand God to have faith in God. It is only necessary to know why we have faith in God even thought our understanding is incomplete.
Of course. And God never said we had to be right about everything to be saved.
He says "Love God with all your being, and love your fellow man, and that is what everything else depends on."
Well actually... He said:
Luke 10:25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?
[26] But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou? [27] He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. [28] And he said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Do that, and you'll spend eternity with Him.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 13, 2017 - 11:10:23
Of course. And God never said we had to be right about everything to be saved.
He says "Love God with all your being, and love your fellow man, and that is what everything else depends on."
Well actually... He said:
Luke 10:25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?
[26] But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou? [27] He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. [28] And he said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Do that, and you'll spend eternity with Him.
Jesus affirmed that the lawyer had answered correctly. However, we must not fail to note that Jesus referred him to the Law and so too was His affirmation, is referenced to the Law thereby in effect cautioning the lawyer that he needed wholehearted compliance with the Law to gain eternal life—which is impossible.
: Alan Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 09:18:32
A sin? I hardly think so, I also think you're completely out of line suggesting that YOUR opinion is the way to salvation. You are sadly deluded by a religious spirit if that is your stance.
God has given you life filled with all the tools you need to go to Heaven or Hell, hands, feet, eyes, ears and a brain ad The User's Manual. If you choose to believe I am religious , you are free to believe that lie if you choose. I have chosen to ignore the empty life religion affords lacks any attraction to the Forgiven when they walk, moment to moment.
: 4WD Fri Oct 13, 2017 - 10:43:58
Maybe KiwiChristian's question was not rhetorical and he really doesn't know why he believes as he does.
True, or maybe he believes faith is something only a christian can possess. ::shrug::
: Alan Fri Oct 13, 2017 - 14:41:37
True, or maybe he believes faith is something only a christian can possess. ::shrug::
nope. an atheist has faith there is no God, a mormon has faith he will become a God, etc.
: 4WD Fri Oct 13, 2017 - 10:43:58
Maybe KiwiChristian's question was not rhetorical and he really doesn't know why he believes as he does.
Oh, i know why i believe what i believe.
: Alan Fri Oct 13, 2017 - 09:58:10
If we're still talking about faith here, then the muslim and mormon are correct in having faith to their god, and rightfully so. Why is that so difficult to understand? This is not a question of biblical principals, it's purely a question of logic.
But their faith is NOT a saving faith because their Gods do not exist.
: KiwiChristian Sat Oct 14, 2017 - 01:23:41Oh, i know why i believe what i believe.
Could you perhaps tells us briefly why you believe what you believe? I think it might be very enlightening.
: KiwiChristian Sat Oct 14, 2017 - 01:24:37
But their faith is NOT a saving faith because their Gods do not exist.
So what? How does that relate to the topic?
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
Spoken like one truly deceived.
Pr 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Jesus affirmed that the lawyer had answered correctly. However, we must not fail to note that Jesus referred him to the Law and so too was His affirmation, is referenced to the Law thereby in effect cautioning the lawyer that he needed wholehearted compliance with the Law to gain eternal life—which is impossible.
Theology won't save you. What is in your heart and what it leads you to do will determine your eternal home.
Matthew 25 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
So how does what you do matter? It depends on your heart. If you love God and love your neighbor, you will be charitable toward your neighbor. If you do not, you will not be charitable toward him, and you will spend eternity with Satan and his angels.
Notice that Jesus says that there will be some who do not understand why they were saved. And He has to explain to them. As He said of the Good Samaritan, it was better to have love in your heart and be a heretical Samaritan, than to be a Levite without love for his fellow man.
It's not in having the right theology, or saying the right words, or anything like that. It's merely having love in your heart. And doing that, you will act as God requires of you to be saved.
Faith vs. Acts is a human error. If you have one, the other will be there. And you can't fake it. As Paul says, if you do all the right things, and lack love, it won't do you any good at all.
As James says, it's good to have faith, but demons believe and tremble, and are not saved. A living faith is required of us, and faith without active love is dead.
Barbarian observes:
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
Spoken like one truly deceived.
It's directly observed. If you doubt this, you are truly deceived.
You belief may seem right to you, but...
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Let God be God and let Him manage creation as He will. He wants other things of you.
Love Him, and love your neighbor. That is where salvation lies.
: KiwiChristian Thu Oct 12, 2017 - 16:30:58
yeah, the single cell and cluster of cells are still the same thing. cells.
we dont observe them evolving into a different kind.
With regards single-celled microbes, also called unicellular organism, do they have a brain?
Apparently, the scientists on this board seems to be silent on this. Well it seems to appear that scientists agree that the unicellular organism is brainless. It can't think. To me this makes of the organism, if at all, considered to have life, is simply one that reacts unintelligently to its environment. It has no awareness of its surroundings nor can think to react differently in the many different things that comes in contact with it in its environment. It seems to me that it is just like any atomic particle of matter that reacts to its environment in the same sense. How they react and where they are used as part of a whole is a matter that can only be ascribed to be set by that which/who created them and made use of them.
To me then, they don't get to evolve, but were created and get to be used to be part of a whole that the creator so make out of them together with different other created parts of the whole. They are building blocks, so to speak, of the many many and various created things that the Creator made.
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 14, 2017 - 18:04:39
Michael...
Jesus affirmed that the lawyer had answered correctly. However, we must not fail to note that Jesus referred him to the Law and so too was His affirmation, is referenced to the Law thereby in effect cautioning the lawyer that he needed wholehearted compliance with the Law to gain eternal life—which is impossible.
Theology won't save you. What is in your heart and what it leads you to do will determine your eternal home.
Matthew 25 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
So how does what you do matter? It depends on your heart. If you love God and love your neighbor, you will be charitable toward your neighbor. If you do not, you will not be charitable toward him, and you will spend eternity with Satan and his angels.
Notice that Jesus says that there will be some who do not understand why they were saved. And He has to explain to them. As He said of the Good Samaritan, it was better to have love in your heart and be a heretical Samaritan, than to be a Levite without love for his fellow man.
It's not in having the right theology, or saying the right words, or anything like that. It's merely having love in your heart. And doing that, you will act as God requires of you to be saved.
Faith vs. Acts is a human error. If you have one, the other will be there. And you can't fake it. As Paul says, if you do all the right things, and lack love, it won't do you any good at all.
As James says, it's good to have faith, but demons believe and tremble, and are not saved. A living faith is required of us, and faith without active love is dead.
Yes, theology will not save, as nothing will, except God, through Christ.
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that
by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
Christ Jesus,
Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that,
through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
Just because a single celled organism isn't conscious doesn't mean it doesn't react to its environment. They do things like swim around objects, eat, procreate, react to heat/cold, react to light, etc. Just like we have reflexes where we react that aren't conscious, such as when we get goosebumps, or how our heart beats by itself, or how our eye pupils dilate if the room gets darker, or how our knee jerks when the doctor hits it with his hammer.
: KiwiChristian Wed Oct 11, 2017 - 00:18:47
So the mormon, JW, muslim also has faith in their God.
Which God is real?
There is only one God, and He is real. Therefore it doesn't really matter what name you call Him by, Allah or Jehovah or Jesus or Brahma or Tao or Eloheinu. He will hear all who earnestly call out to Him. Now, is there confusion in what people think they know about Him? Certainly. The competing claims about God are contradictory -- they cannot all be correct. But God isn't going to pout and refuse to talk to an earnest heart simply because a person is confused.
: Open Heart Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 02:06:11
There is only one God, and He is real. Therefore it doesn't really matter what name you call Him by, Allah or Jehovah or Jesus or Brahma or Tao or Eloheinu. He will hear all who earnestly call out to Him. Now, is there confusion in what people think they know about Him? Certainly. The competing claims about God are contradictory -- they cannot all be correct. But God isn't going to pout and refuse to talk to an earnest heart simply because a person is confused.
Wow, you really do believe that, dont you?
Its like if i know someone called bob and you know someone else called bob and us having a conversation about bob without first defining WHO we are talking about.
Same with God.
Have you STUDIED the history of allah?
My guess is no.
WHO taught you allah and God are the same?
You sound very new age.
WHO taught you allah and God are the same?
Christians who speak Arabic call Him "Allah." There's only one God, (and no one in Israel ever called him "God.') Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Samaritans (and probably others) all worship the God who spoke to Abraham.
Even if one's theology is not perfect, one can be saved.
Yes anyone can be saved, but only by accepting that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Not just a good prophet. I know some converted Muslims. They are now Christians and denounce Islam and Allah. They denounce the false god of Allah, not that the supreme being was understood by them.
And Allah as a name and allah as a description are not the same thing. We call Allah A god, (a false one) but he is not Jehovah, the one true God. And of course his name isn't God.
A study of the origin of Allah IS eye opening.
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 14, 2017 - 18:11:21
Barbarian observes:
But electricity is still a fact, just like evolution.
It's directly observed. If you doubt this, you are truly deceived.
You belief may seem right to you, but...
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Let God be God and let Him manage creation as He will. He wants other things of you.
Love Him, and love your neighbor. That is where salvation lies.
What you say is directly observed is not the same as the theory of evolution. Your calling all change evolution, then claiming this is how all existing life came about. The latter is not directly observed, never has been, and never will be. It absolutely is not a fact.
I do let God be God, and His word tells me how He created life in this world. I'm not the one who rejects that testimony you are. Apparently, our problems stem from worshipping different God's. I worship the God of the bible, taking the bible as his trust worthy word. Your worship a God that shares some attributes of that of scripture, some of your own ideas or those of others, and the same God as that of many other religions as you have apparently expressed in other posts.
Salvation does not lie solely in simply what you choose to believe from scripture and or ignore from the same. Loving God first and foremost, and loving your neighbor include telling them the truth. All who believe and preach lies do not love either. They do not submit to the word of God as the truth, and they spread their lies concerning the same to others. This is not love. God is love, not a liar. His words are truth. Those who contradict His word are liars. They do to love god or their neighbors, they cannot. Choosing to be outside of God's truth is choosing to be outside of true love, for God is love.
The bible absolutely does not teach I'm OK, your OK. No one is OK. We are all sinners in desperate need of God's guidance and salvation. The bible is that guidance, and those who reject its testimony place themselves outside of His guidance, and thereby endanger their salvation. Many, even who profess Christ, and think they have done wonderful works in His name, will be cast out into darkness. Let alone those who willfully reject the guiding testimony of His word for us.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 08:33:45
Christians who speak Arabic call Him "Allah." There's only one God, (and no one in Israel ever called him "God.') Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Samaritans (and probably others) all worship the God who spoke to Abraham.
Even if one's theology is not perfect, one can be saved.
Their God's are not the same. They each have testimony from different sources claiming to be from their God. Which sources often contradict each other. Only in abject ignorance will any of the false religions be saved. All who have had opportunity to hear the truth and rejected it, will be lost. Including professed Christians. The majority of the Jews in Christ's day rejected their Messiah, killed Him and then went after His followers. All who died unrepentant of the same are lost souls. As well as all who have had opportunity to accept Him again and have chosen not to.
"Christians" throughout history who have rejected the plain testimony of scripture in order to follow their own way, are lost souls. As well as the many professed "Christians" who forced their will upon other through persecution and murder.
Muslims who have had opportunity to hear the truth and rejected the same are lost as well. Certainly also are all Muslims who persecute and kill in their God's name. It is the same with Samaritans and all other professing any faith. Death came to humanity through a lie, and all who choose to believe and sustain any lie, will die for doing so. By doing so, they prove themselves the children of the evil one, rather than the children of God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
: Open Heart Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 02:06:11
There is only one God, and He is real. Therefore it doesn't really matter what name you call Him by, Allah or Jehovah or Jesus or Brahma or Tao or Eloheinu. He will hear all who earnestly call out to Him. Now, is there confusion in what people think they know about Him? Certainly. The competing claims about God are contradictory -- they cannot all be correct. But God isn't going to pout and refuse to talk to an earnest heart simply because a person is confused.
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel,
that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Peter disagrees with you. I'm inclined to believe his testimony over yours.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 08:33:45
Christians who speak Arabic call Him "Allah." There's only one God, (and no one in Israel ever called him "God.') Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Samaritans (and probably others) all worship the God who spoke to Abraham.
Even if one's theology is not perfect, one can be saved.
LOL.
Yes, the NAME allah means "God", but it is a DIFFERENT GOD.
ANYONE can use the name "God". Doesnt mean we are talking about the same entity.
Do you mean that those in the Bible worshipping "false Gods" are indeed worshipping the TRUE God?
: KiwiChristian Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 14:15:37Yes, the NAME allah means "God", but it is a DIFFERENT GOD.
The Muslim will tell you Allah is the Allah of Abraham and that Ishmael, not Jacob, is the legitimate heir of Isaac.
: Open Heart Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 02:00:59
Just because a single celled organism isn't conscious doesn't mean it doesn't react to its environment. They do things like swim around objects, eat, procreate, react to heat/cold, react to light, etc. Just like we have reflexes where we react that aren't conscious, such as when we get goosebumps, or how our heart beats by itself, or how our eye pupils dilate if the room gets darker, or how our knee jerks when the doctor hits it with his hammer.
I did not say that single-celled organisms doesn't react to its environment. In fact, this is what I said:
Well it seems to appear that scientists agree that the unicellular organism is brainless. It can't think. To me this makes of the organism, if at all, considered to have life, is simply one that reacts unintelligently to its environment. It has no awareness of its surroundings nor can think to react differently in the many different things that comes in contact with it in its environment. It seems to me that it is just like any atomic particle of matter that reacts to its environment in the same sense. How they react and where they are used as part of a whole is a matter that can only be ascribed to be set by that which/who created them and made use of them.
To me then, they don't get to evolve, but were created and get to be used to be part of a whole that the creator so make out of them together with different other created parts of the whole. They are building blocks, so to speak, of the many many and various created things that the Creator made.
"
4WD, you were close, Muslims AND the Koran claim that Ishmael not Isaac is the son of promise of Abraham. Jacob was Isaac's son. Subtle but important difference. Same with any counterfeit.
: Open Heart Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 02:06:11
There is only one God, and He is real. Therefore it doesn't really matter what name you call Him by, Allah or Jehovah or Jesus or Brahma or Tao or Eloheinu. He will hear all who earnestly call out to Him. Now, is there confusion in what people think they know about Him? Certainly. The competing claims about God are contradictory -- they cannot all be correct. But God isn't going to pout and refuse to talk to an earnest heart simply because a person is confused.
I agree, there is only one true/real God. Now, there are many other gods that people worship, which obviously are false gods. People gave them names according to what they make and believe of it as the god of something and ascribe to them whatever power they think believe it possess. And there are people who believe there is not one true god but many. And so, the name is very important.
But who is the one true God? What is His name?
He is the God revealed in the Holy Scriptures, the God who created everything and the first man and woman. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
Exodus 3:13-15 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
13 Moshe said to God, "Look, when I appear before the people of Isra'el and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you'; and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?" 14 God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: '
Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'" 15 God said further to Moshe, "Say this to the people of Isra'el: '
Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz'chak and the God of Ya'akov, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation.
Romans 10:12-13 (NKJV)
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "
whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Philippians 2:10-11 (NKJV)
10 that
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 14:10-11 (NKJV)
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written:
"As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God."
Acts 4:10-12 (NKJV)
10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
The name does matter. The name by which man is saved is not Allah or Brahma or Tao.
What you say is directly observed is not the same as the theory of evolution.
Let's test your belief. Tell me which of Darwin's four points have not be observed and confirmed.
Your calling all change evolution,
No, that's YE creationists, who want to make it about the origin of life, and the Big Bang, and who knows what else. Your argument with them, not with science. Be sure to tell me which of Darwin's four point haven't been observed.
then claiming this is how all existing life came about.
No. Evolutionary theory isn't about how life came to be. Darwin, for example suggested that God just created the first living things.
The latter is not directly observed, never has been, and never will be. It absolutely is not a fact.
I don't see how you can have living things and not have an origin for them. Nothing is eternal but God.
I do let God be God, and His word tells me how He created life in this world.
See above. You've been misled about what evolution is about. Why not find out, and then tell us which of Darwin's four points haven't been directly observed.
I'm not the one who rejects that testimony you are. Apparently, our problems stem from worshipping different God's.
I worship the God Who spoke to Abraham. He's the only God there is.
You worship a God that shares some attributes of that of scripture, some of your own ideas or those of others, and the same God as that of many other religions as you have apparently expressed in other posts.
If you think so, you're badly confused about what it is that Christians believe. You don't need all the modern revisions of YE creationism. Just take him as He is.
Salvation does not lie solely in simply what you choose to believe from scripture and or ignore from the same.
That's a remarkably mature and sensible observation. Theology never saves you.
Loving God first and foremost, and loving your neighbor include telling them the truth. All who believe and preach lies do not love either.
I notice that there are YE creationists who love God, and love their neighbor, demonstrate this. So being wrong about Genesis obviously doesn't hurt them. Likewise, Christians who don't accept the new doctrine of YE creationism, are most often those who love God and love their fellow man. So being wrong about how God did creation clearly is not a bar to salvation. Yes, if YE creationists were aware that they were wrong, that would be something that could endanger their salvation, but I don't think there are very many of them like that.
The bible absolutely does not teach I'm OK, your OK. No one is OK.
Jesus said that the way was to love God and your neighbor, and this would entail showing love and charity for the unfortunate. He also said that it was better for you to be a heretic and have love for your neighbor, than to be theologically correct, and lack love. St. Paul reinforces that.
Let Him be God, and this will trouble you no more.
Meantime, let us know about Darwin's four points, and which of them have not been observed.
: Open Heart Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 02:06:11
There is only one God, and He is real. Therefore it doesn't really matter what name you call Him by, Allah or Jehovah or Jesus or Brahma or Tao or Eloheinu.
Wow, Moses asked God what His name was.
How did God reply?
Did He reply "Oh, it doesn't matter what you call me" ?
You sound very ignorant of WHO God is, my friend.
Wow, Moses asked God what His name was.
How did God reply?
Did He reply "Oh, it doesn't matter what you call me" ?
You and I, for example, call Him "God", when He never told anyone that was His name. We use the Anglo-Saxon word for a deity, but that's not what the Israelites called him. He knows when English speakers call Him "God" and when Arabic-speaking Christians call him "Allah" and so on, that they mean Him.
You need to remember this.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 20:36:05
You and I, for example, call Him "God", when He never told anyone that was His name. We use the Anglo-Saxon word for a deity, but that's not what the Israelites called him. He knows when English speakers call Him "God" and when Arabic-speaking Christians call him "Allah" and so on, that they mean Him.
You need to remember this.
Why not go to a Muslim, throw your arm around him and say: "We are brothers you and I, we are so lucky to believe in the exact same God".
See what kind of response you get.
Barbarian observes:
You and I, for example, call Him "God", when He never told anyone that was His name. We use the Anglo-Saxon word for a deity, but that's not what the Israelites called him. He knows when English speakers call Him "God" and when Arabic-speaking Christians call him "Allah" and so on, that they mean Him.
You need to remember this.
Why not go to a Muslim, throw your arm around him and say: "We are brothers you and I, we are so lucky to believe in the exact same God".
See what kind of response you get.
My assistant coach when I had a club team, was Muslim. The orthodox Muslim will tell you that Jews, and Christians, and some others are "people of the book", who all worship the same God as Muslims.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 23:55:13
Barbarian observes:
You and I, for example, call Him "God", when He never told anyone that was His name. We use the Anglo-Saxon word for a deity, but that's not what the Israelites called him. He knows when English speakers call Him "God" and when Arabic-speaking Christians call him "Allah" and so on, that they mean Him.
You need to remember this.
My assistant coach when I had a club team, was Muslim. The orthodox Muslim will tell you that Jews, and Christians, and some others are "people of the book", who all worship the same God as Muslims.
Utter nonsense and rubbish.
Utter nonsense and rubbish.
It's just a fact. No point in denying it.
In the Quran the term "people of the book" refers to Jews, Christians, and Sabians.[8] The scriptures referred to in the Quran are the Torah (al-tawrat), the Psalms (al-zabur) and the Gospel (al-injil).[8]
The Quran emphasizes the community of faith between possessors of monotheistic scriptures, and occasionally pays tribute to the religious and moral virtues of communities that have received earlier revelations, calling on Muhammad to ask them for information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 23:55:13
The orthodox Muslim will tell you that Jews, and Christians, and some others are "people of the book", who all worship the same God as Muslims.
Is that so?
Imagine two people say they know Barbarian.
One says: The Barbarian I know has a son.
The other says: The Barbarian I know has no son.
So you think they are talking about the same Barbarian?
: AVZ Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 05:44:18
Is that so?
Imagine two people say they know Barbarian.
One says: The Barbarian I know has a son.
The other says: The Barbarian I know has no son.
So you think they are talking about the same Barbarian?
Certainly possible. One of them just doesn't know Barbarian well enough to know whether or not he has a son.
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 06:28:16
Certainly possible. One of them just doesn't know Barbarian well enough to know whether or not he has a son.
+1
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 06:28:16
Quote from: AVZ on Today at 05:44:18
Is that so?
Imagine two people say they know Barbarian.
One says: The Barbarian I know has a son.
The other says: The Barbarian I know has no son.
So you think they are talking about the same Barbarian?
Certainly possible. One of them just doesn't know Barbarian well enough to know whether or not he has a son.
Are you suggesting that the Muslims only misinterpreted their Quran which tells them that Allah has no son? Or that the Christian is mistaken in his understanding of the Holy Bible that God has a Son? That one of them just doesn't know enough whether God has a son or not?
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 07:07:12
Are you suggesting that the Muslims only misinterpreted their Quran which tells them that Allah has no son? Or that the Christian is mistaken in his understanding of the Holy Bible that God has a Son? That one of them just doesn't know enough whether God has a son or not?
No
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 06:28:16
Certainly possible. One of them just doesn't know Barbarian well enough to know whether or not he has a son.
1 John 2:22
"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son."1 John 2:23
"No one who denies the Son has the Father"John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."1 John 4:3
"but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 01:30:30
It's just a fact. No point in denying it.
In the Quran the term "people of the book" refers to Jews, Christians, and Sabians.[8] The scriptures referred to in the Quran are the Torah (al-tawrat), the Psalms (al-zabur) and the Gospel (al-injil).[8]
The Quran emphasizes the community of faith between possessors of monotheistic scriptures, and occasionally pays tribute to the religious and moral virtues of communities that have received earlier revelations, calling on Muhammad to ask them for information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
This is what Quoran 3:64 teaches:
Say: "O people of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to a word that is just between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside God."Clearly the Muslims take it that Christians and Jews are worshiping another lord besides God.
So, not the same God after all.
AVZ,
The Muslims claim they worship the God of Abraham. Is that a different Abraham? A different God? Or are they just wrong in what they believe about God?
It's to give false credence to the legitimacy of Allah, Muhammed and the Koran. They are so sure of who they worship, but they missed a very important detail in the story of Isaac and Ishmael. As in all counterfeits, there is some degree of truth. Abraham had a son of the promise and it wasn't Ishmael as the Koran states.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 13:49:34
No. Evolutionary theory isn't about how life came to be. Darwin, for example suggested that God just created the first living things.
Why did Darwin suggested that? And what first living things was Darwin referring to, do you know?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 13:49:34
Jesus said that the way was to love God and your neighbor, and this would entail showing love and charity for the unfortunate. He also said that it was better for you to be a heretic and have love for your neighbor, than to be theologically correct, and lack love. St. Paul reinforces that.
Jesus said "
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me."
And Jesus never said anything to the effect that "it was better for you to be a heretic and have love for your neighbor, than to be theologically correct, and lack love." And Paul of course did not reinforce that.
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 08:22:34
AVZ,
The Muslims claim they worship the God of Abraham. Is that a different Abraham? A different God? Or are they just wrong in what they believe about God?
Muslims claim a lot of things. They claim Muhammad is the greatest prophet and they also claim Jesus is not the Son of God.
If you were to ask Abraham, do you think he would agree with you Muslims honor the same God he did?
How about on Judgment Day, do you think God will be their God?
: Jaime Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 09:50:01
It's to give false credence to the legitimacy of Allah, Muhammed and the Koran. They are so sure of who they worship, but they missed a very important detail in the story of Isaac and Ishmael. As in all counterfeits, there is some degree of truth. Abraham had a son of the promise and it wasn't Ishmael as the Koran states.
It's far to coincidental that Ishmael fits into every possible area of Islam, from the Ishmaelites to the Quraysh and from Assyria to the land of Egypt, these people were well known to be enemies of God. It would seem highly unlikely that Muhammad would suddenly have a revelation that would support scripture to his present date, No, instead he had a "revelation"that created a course of apologetics for every decedent of Ishmael forward, while rewriting the known scriptural account of God and creation.
Islam is as false as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their Pastafarians, which incidentally is also a genuine religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
: AVZ Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 10:06:55
Muslims claim a lot of things. They claim Muhammad is the greatest prophet and they also claim Jesus is not the Son of God.
If you were to ask Abraham, do you think he would agree with you Muslims honor the same God he did?
How about on Judgment Day, do you think God will be their God?
AVZ, you claim a lot of stuff that I absolutely disagree with. I think you are very, very wrong about a lot of things about God. But I certainly wouldn't claim that you worship a different God; only that you are misguided. Muslims are terribly and horribly misguided; absolutely wrong on almost everything they say about God. Still that doesn't mean it isn't God.
The Scribes and Pharisees were terribly wrong about God also, but Jesus never claimed they believed in a different God, only that they were wrong.
The scriptures (OT) that the Jews and Christians share describe the very same God. The Koran describes a very different God. Satan or Allah ( the Father of lies) is responsible for the counterfeit religion that is Islam and its counterfeit holy book and prophet.
Certainly possible. One of them just doesn't know Barbarian well enough to know whether or not he has a son.
Precisely.
Should be noted, though, that the Hebrews did, and Muslims do, refer to angels as "sons of God."
(The Barbarian has three sons, BTW)
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 11:03:05
AVZ, you claim a lot of stuff that I absolutely disagree with. I think you are very, very wrong about a lot of things about God. But I certainly wouldn't claim that you worship a different God; only that you are misguided. Muslims are terribly and horribly misguided; absolutely wrong on almost everything they say about God. Still that doesn't mean it isn't God.
The Scribes and Pharisees were terribly wrong about God also, but Jesus never claimed they believed in a different God, only that they were wrong.
There is a huge difference between having some aspects wrong about God, and denying His essentials.
Scripture clearly teaches that those who deny Christ are from the antichrist and do not have the Father.
The Scribes and Pharisees were not just wrong, they stood condemned by rejecting Christ.
They too claimed to have the God of Abraham as their Father, but Jesus told them that they had Satan as their father. (John 8:44)
So you are wrong. Jesus did claim the Scribes and Pharisees had a different god, and they were carrying out his desires.
: KiwiChristian Sun Oct 15, 2017 - 04:50:41
Wow, you really do believe that, dont you?
Its like if i know someone called bob and you know someone else called bob and us having a conversation about bob without first defining WHO we are talking about.
Same with God.
Have you STUDIED the history of allah?
My guess is no.
WHO taught you allah and God are the same?
You sound very new age.
You've made a few really big errors:
1. there are a gazillion bobs, but only one God. Therefore yes we need to figure out which bob we are talking about, but we can assume we are talking about the same God.
2. I have studied Islam, but in the University and personally. I have read the Quran. I have studied Muhammed and the historical times surrounding the origins of Islam. I am not a Muslim.
3. I am not New Age or a Neo Pagan. I am a Messianic Jewish Catholic, and is in touch with my Jewish identity as well as being a devout Christian. I teach catechism.
: KiwiChristian Mon Oct 16, 2017 - 19:36:05
Wow, Moses asked God what His name was.
How did God reply?
Did He reply "Oh, it doesn't matter what you call me" ?
You sound very ignorant of WHO God is, my friend.
And do you go around calling God, "I am who I am" or do you just call him God?
: Alan Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 11:01:10Pastafarians, which incidentally is also a genuine religion.
No, pastafarianism is a fake religion. Why? because no one really believes in it. Its just sarcasm.
: AVZ Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 22:39:50Jesus did claim the Scribes and Pharisees had a different god, and they were carrying out his desires.
Chapter and verse. The verse you quoted doesn't do it
: Open Heart Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 10:29:03
No, pastafarianism is a fake religion. Why? because no one really believes in it. Its just sarcasm.
I don't argue that the FSM and it's adherents are a false religion but they have gathered enough to momentum to classified as a registered religion in some countries. Yes it was originally conceived as satire but they continue now as opposers to creationism and intelligent design, as a religious cult.
I don't argue that the FSM and it's adherents are a false religion but they have gathered enough to momentum to classified as a registered religion in some countries. Yes it was originally conceived as satire but they continue now as opposers to creationism and intelligent design, as a religious cult.
Pastafarians (originally "adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster") are really active in Seattle, which not coincidentally is the home of the Discovery Institute, which invented the doctrine of "intelligent design." I suspect the pastafarians were designed to rile the creationists more than anything else.
Back in the day, it was "the Invisible Pink Unicorn."
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 15:19:22
Pastafarians (originally "adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster") are really active in Seattle, which not coincidentally is the home of the Discovery Institute, which invented the doctrine of "intelligent design." I suspect the pastafarians were designed to rile the creationists more than anything else.
Back in the day, it was "the Invisible Pink Unicorn."
It is amazing how these people prove the Bible true.
The fool in his heart has said "There is no God".
: Open Heart Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 10:17:38
And do you go around calling God, "I am who I am" or do you just call him God?
As for me, when I pray to my God, I call Him "Father". When I speak about my God, I refer to Him as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or in most of the time, the Father of Jesus Christ, which after I have made clear who it is I am speaking about, I, for short, refer to Him as God. I am careful not to call Him by a general name for "god" used by other people who do not know, or know but do not believe the only true God, who was revealed to man by His own Son, more than two thousand years ago, and about which is written in the NT Scriptures, for these names used by them obviously refer to something or someone other than the Father of Jesus Christ.
Now, if and when people use a name to call to the only true God, that is, the Father of Jesus, say for example, "Allah", I could talk to these people and use "Allah", no problem. But, if and when the name does not refer to the Father of Jesus, I certainly would have a problem with that. For scriptures says that no one knows the Father except the Son, which means that, anyone who speak of a god who denies Jesus Christ, as the Son, speak of another god and not the true God. Of such who denies the Son, scriptures says that he has not the Father.
: 4WD Tue Oct 17, 2017 - 11:03:05
AVZ, you claim a lot of stuff that I absolutely disagree with. I think you are very, very wrong about a lot of things about God.
So, lets be specific. WHAT is one thing he is wrong about God?
Interesting link pertaining to the discussion at hand.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe
101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe
Young earth video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QpE8mtRb1A
The entire article the quotes below were taken from may be viewed at the link provided.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.3711&rep=rep1&type=pdf
14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D.*
Abstract. A remarkable discovery made over the past twenty-five years is that organic samples from every level in the Phanerozoic portion of the geological record, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, display significant and reproducible amounts of 14C. Because the lifetime of 14C is so brief, these AMS measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of million of years to this part of the rock record. With a half-life of 5730 years, 14C decays to levels undetectable by any currently available technique after only 100,000 years (17.5 half-lives). After one million years (175 half-lives), the amount of 14C remaining is only 3 × 10-53 of the initial 14C concentration—so vanishingly small as to exclude even a single 14C atom in a beginning mass of 14C equal to the mass of the earth itself. However, in samples with uniformitarian ages between one and 500 million years, the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature documents scores of examples of 14C/C ratios in the range 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio. The lower limit of this range is a factor of ten above the detection threshold of most AMS laboratories in the world. Another noteworthy observation is that the 14C/C ratio of these samples appears to be uncorrelated with their position in the geological record. RATE's own measurement of 14C levels in ten coal samples using one of the world's best AMS laboratories strongly confirms both this reported range in 14C/C ratio and the lack of dependence of this ratio on position in the rock record. In terms of 14C age, if one makes the assumption, as is normally done, that the 14C/C ratio in these fossilized organisms when they died was close to that of today's atmosphere, the range in 14C/C ratio of 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern value corresponds to 14C ages between 44,000 and 57,000 years. A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all but the very youngest fossil material in the geological record was buried contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been a major global cataclysm. The simultaneous destruction of so much life implies, however, that dramatically more total carbon (now in the form of coal, oil, and oil shale) had to be present in the earth's biosphere prior to this cataclysmic event. In this case using today's atmospheric 14C/C ratio as the initial 14C/C ratio for this fossil material almost certainly would not be a proper assumption. Using a lower, more realistic estimate for the biospheric 14C/C ratio prior to this cataclysm reduces the actual 14C age by roughly a factor of ten from about 50,000 years to a value of about 5000 years. This latter age estimate, of course, is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the life on the planet, both plants and animals, in a single brief cataclysm some four to five millennia ago. Finally, our 14C RATE project has measured 14C/C ratios above the AMS threshold in diamonds from a variety of locations. Although more confirmation is needed to justify a strong claim in this regard, these measurements appear to limit the age of the physical earth itself to the range of thousands (as opposed to billions) of years.................................
12. Conclusions
The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years in an attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic 14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with "ages" from 1–500 Ma as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14C levels that are well above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1–0.5pMC. Such levels of intrinsic 14C represent an obvious difficulty for uniformitarianism. After one million years, corresponding to 174.5 14C half-lives, the fraction of original 14C remaining is 3 × 10-53. Yet a mass of 14C equal to the entire mass of the earth (6×1024kg) contains only about 3×105014C atoms.
Under uniformitarian assumptions, not a single atom of 14C formed one million years ago anywhere in or on the earth should conceivably still exist. The clear inconsistency between the ages implied by the AMS-determined 14C/C ratios and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques can no longer be treated merely as a yet to be understood anomaly by the specialists, for the time being to be explained away as "14C contamination," and therefore ignored by rest of the scientific world. Inconsistency of this magnitude demands substantive explanation. Our explanation is that the assumption of time- invariant nuclear decay rates is almost certainly not correct and is, in fact, the root of this inconsistency. Our other RATE research projects (for example, Humphreys [2005] and Snelling [2005]) lend strong support to this conclusion. Put simply, the evidence of 14C throughout the Phanerozoic part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history was instead a much briefer interval. Moreover, the relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios suggests all Phanerozoic fossil organisms prior to somewhere in the middle to upper Cenozoic were contemporaries and perished almost simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note the presence of detectable levels of 14C in natural diamonds, formed deep within the earth during its early history, hints the age of the planet itself may likewise be constrained by the brief life span of 14C. We therefore conclude the 14C data provide noteworthy support for a recent global Flood and a young earth.
Under uniformitarian assumptions, not a single atom of 14C formed one million years ago anywhere in or on the earth should conceivably still exist.
Laughably wrong. First, the person who wrote that is ignorant of the way radioactive decay works. One mole (about 46grams) of C-14 would, with a half-life of 5,000 years (I'm rounding, but if you want precise numbers, I'll do them for you) in one billion years, leave about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of C-14 remaining.
Second, it assumes that C-14 cannot be produced in nature. C-14 is made from nitrogen, when a high energy particle strikes the nitrogen atom. So long as there are radioactive elements in the Earth this is still going on.
The Bible is True and the Book of all books. And it comes from God. God Is THE Truth, the Way, and The Life through Jesus Christ His one and only begotten Son!
: Jean74 Sat Oct 21, 2017 - 21:12:29
The Bible is True and the Book of all books. And it comes from God. God Is THE Truth, the Way, and The Life through Jesus Christ His one and only begotten Son!
Some things just need repeating
Until it is understood (:-
: Jean74 Sat Oct 21, 2017 - 21:12:29
The Bible is True and the Book of all books. And it comes from God. God Is THE Truth, the Way, and The Life through Jesus Christ His one and only begotten Son!
Technically NOT a book.
It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years across 3 continents, by over 40 writers inspired by God in 3 languages yet it has ONE primary theme ( The Glory of God and salvation of mankind ) and zero errors or contradictions.
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 21, 2017 - 17:47:53
Laughably wrong. First, the person who wrote that is ignorant of the way radioactive decay works. One mole (about 46grams) of C-14 would, with a half-life of 5,000 years (I'm rounding, but if you want precise numbers, I'll do them for you) in one billion years, leave about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of C-14 remaining.
Second, it assumes that C-14 cannot be produced in nature. C-14 is made from nitrogen, when a high energy particle strikes the nitrogen atom. So long as there are radioactive elements in the Earth this is still going on.
All emphasis in the following quotes from the links provided is mine.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/stsmith/classes/anth3/courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html
Radiocarbon, or Carbon-14, dating is probably one of the most widely used and best known absolute dating methods. It was developed by J. R. Arnold and W. F. Libby in 1949, and has become an indispensable part of the archaeologist's tool kit since. It's development revolutionized archaeology by providing a means of dating deposits independent of artifacts and local stratigraphic sequences. This allowed for the establishment of world-wide chronologies.
Where does C -14 Come From?
Radiocarbon dating relies on a simple natural phenomenon. As the Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic radiation, atmospheric nitrogen is broken down into an unstable isotope of carbon - carbon 14 (C-14).
The unstable isotope is brought to Earth by atmospheric activity, such as storms, and becomes fixed in the biosphere. Because it reacts identically to C-12 and C-13, C-14 becomes attached to complex organic molecules through photosynthesis in plants and becomes part of their molecular makeup. Animals eating those plants in turn absorb Carbon-14 as well as the stable isotopes. This process of ingesting C-14 continues as long as the plant or animal remains alive.
C-14 Decay Profile
The C-14 within an organism is continually decaying into stable carbon isotopes, but since the organism is absorbing more C-14 during its life, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 remains about the same as the ratio in the atmosphere. When the organism dies, the ratio of C-14 within its carcass begins to gradually decrease. The rate of decrease is 1/2 the quantity at death every 5,730 years. That is the half-life of C-14. The animation provides an example of how this logarithmic decay occurs. Click on the "Show Movie" button below to view this animation.
Dead buried things do not continue to ingest C-14.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
Carbon 14 Assumptions
Since many of the assumptions that one has to make when using carbon dating are similar to the assumptions one must make for other radioactive dating methods, it is worthwhile to examine them.
As you may know, carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic radiation interacts with nitrogen gas, converting nitrogen 14 to carbon 14. These carbon 14 atoms combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide gas, which is absorbed by plants. The plants use the carbon in the carbon dioxide to make sugar and other edible stuff. Animals eat the plants, ingesting the carbon 14. As long as the plant or animal is alive, it keeps ingesting carbon, which is a mixture of stable carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14. When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating carbon-containing food, so its earthly remains no longer absorb carbon 14. The carbon 14 that it had when it died, however, slowly decays into nitrogen gas. So, by measuring the amount of carbon 14 left in the specimen, one can tell how long it has been since it died. If you had a good high school science course, you already know all of that.
Dead and buried plants and animals do not produce C-14. Are you saying they do. If they can, and nature can and does produce C-14 in ways we do not even know yet, then doesn't that pretty much trash the consistency of C-14 dating altogether? Are you saying we can date things a billion years old with C-14 dating? Just exactly what are you saying?
Dead buried things do not continue to ingest C-14.
However, as you learned, C-14 can be produced in dead buried things, if there are even traces of radioactive elements in the ground. I showed you a link explaining this. And as I said, even if that wasn't the case, your site would still be wrong in claiming that there wouldn't be a single atom of C-14 left after millions of years:
Barbarian observes:
One mole (about 46grams) of C-14 would, with a half-life of 5,000 years (I'm rounding, but if you want precise numbers, I'll do them for you) in one billion years, leave about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of C-14 remaining.
Would you like me to show you the math?
When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating carbon-containing food, so its earthly remains no longer absorb carbon 14. The carbon 14 that it had when it died, however, slowly decays into nitrogen gas. So, by measuring the amount of carbon 14 left in the specimen, one can tell how long it has been since it died. If you had a good high school science course, you already know all of that.
This isn't always true, either. For example, mollusks like claims and snails get much of their carbon from geologic sources, which are usually very old. So clamshells, or bones of creatures that eat mollusks will give false ages, showing them to be very ancient. There are many other issues with C-14; entire books are written about things to be careful to avoid in sampling.
And, as you learned earlier, archaeologists use C-14 when studying historical sites, but paleontologists do not, because C-14 has a very short half-life and is not useful for things many millions of years old.
" mollusks like claims and snails get much of their carbon from geologic sources, which are usually very old."
Presuppositions.
I would guess the only reason you IMAGINE ( since this is NOT observed ) this is because the dates do not fit in to your false presuppositions.
The accepted dates are in fact SELECTED dates.
Since we KNOW some dates are false, how do we know ANY of them are true?
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 22, 2017 - 13:55:57
However, as you learned, C-14 can be produced in dead buried things, if there are even traces of radioactive elements in the ground. I showed you a link explaining this. And as I said, even if that wasn't the case, your site would still be wrong in claiming that there wouldn't be a single atom of C-14 left after millions of years:
Barbarian observes:
One mole (about 46grams) of C-14 would, with a half-life of 5,000 years (I'm rounding, but if you want precise numbers, I'll do them for you) in one billion years, leave about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of C-14 remaining.
Would you like me to show you the math?
This isn't always true, either. For example, mollusks like claims and snails get much of their carbon from geologic sources, which are usually very old. So clamshells, or bones of creatures that eat mollusks will give false ages, showing them to be very ancient. There are many other issues with C-14; entire books are written about things to be careful to avoid in sampling.
And, as you learned earlier, archaeologists use C-14 when studying historical sites, but paleontologists do not, because C-14 has a very short half-life and is not useful for things many millions of years old.
Make up your mind, is C-14 to short lived to be used concerning millions of years, or does it last millions of years and therefore can be measured? If you are talking about isolated or unusual circumstance, then this does not effect the over all claim of the article you are attempting to refute with an acceptation rather than the rule. Of course human nature dictates that most of us fight tooth and nail for what we have already chosen to believe I suppose.
Make up your mind, is C-14 to short lived to be used concerning millions of years, or does it last millions of years and therefore can be measured?
You're still struggling with the concept of half-life. While your source is dead wrong about how much C-14 is around at the end of hundreds of millions of years, the amount of the material in organic matter allows accurate dating only out to about 50,000 years, although this gets longer and longer as techniques improve.
If you are talking about isolated or unusual circumstance,
No. Under any circumstances, a huge number of C-14 atoms in an original mole of C-14 would remain after a billion years. Unfortunately, the amount currently useful for accurate dating requires more than that.
Your author simply doesn't understand the concept of half-life, and is completely unaware that new C-14 can be formed by radiation underground. Almost all deposits have tiny amounts of radioactive material, which explains the very low levels of C-14 found in ancient carbon, such as coal.
The "Great Flood" did occur
Unable to insert images of actual flood
The "Great Flood" did occur
No one can say for sure if the flood story is an allegory or an actual event. However, there was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at about the right time, so I'm inclined to think it did happen.
Just a question i just thought of.
Which LANGUAGE evolved first?
What was the first spoken word?
And don't say "ugg". :)
Note: if the text is too small to read, just hold down the [CTRL] key while rolling your mouse roller up or down
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 22, 2017 - 20:54:07
No one can say for sure if the flood story is an allegory or an actual event. However, there was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at about the right time, so I'm inclined to think it did happen.
It's strange that some people when reading Gods Word and hear Him say He will forgive our sins and take us up in heaven, they believe Him on His word.
But when people read Gods Word and hear Him tell us the story of the Flood, Creation, Plagues in Egypt etc, they wonder if those words may not be allegorical and proof is required.
: KiwiChristian Sun Oct 22, 2017 - 21:02:09
Just a question i just thought of.
Which LANGUAGE evolved first?
What was the first spoken word?
And don't say "ugg". :)
Not sure if a serious question, but I can answer it if you're actually interested?
Language doesn't follow a linear evolution from simple to complex. There are instead two competing factors - vocabulary and grammar - which tend to have an inverse relationship.
To be specific, in the absence of cross-cultural contact, a language's vocabulary will shrink, while its grammar becomes more defined and complex. When there is cross-cultural contact, borrowing of words occurs, resulting in an increase in vocabulary, usually accompanied by a de-emphasis in grammar, while grammatical constructions of the two languages are harmonized.
The first spoken languages were not very standardized - that is, they were basically ad hoc constructions understood by only a few people. They were like the secret language you created with your best friend on the playground in 3rd grade, except they served a whole family, or whole town.
The first written languages were pictographic - that is, they began with stringing together pictures. From there, we see the beginnings of standardization - more than one group of people using the same set of pictures. We have a lot of this type of writing on record - cuneiform.
The invention of the first phonetic language came about with the synthesis between private spoken language, and standardized written language. This happened when the universal written language cuneiform was merged with regional voiced dialects across the Levant. Collectively, we know these languages as
Semitic. Northern Semitic is generally credited as the earliest attested phonetic language, and the people who spoke it, the Phoenicians, gave their name to the invention. Phonetic language from Phoenicians. These people appear in your Bible, where they are called
Canaanites rather than Phoenicians.
The language Biblical scholars think of as Biblical Hebrew is known by language experts as a dialect of Western Semitic, which falls alongside Canaanitish among the earliest attested phonetic languages in the world.
At the time of this synthesis, all Semitic languages were known in written language by a single pictogram - a picture of a shepherd's staff. This carried multiple meanings, but here primarily it means to lead or teach.
As nearly as I can tell, this pictogram evolved into the letter you know today as
L, and the way we pronounce it probably hasn't changed during that time.
The first spoken word is unknowable, but the most likely, IMO, is
H, which pictogram is a pointing hand. It means, "that."
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 01:16:02
Not sure if a serious question, but I can answer it if you're actually interested?
Yes, it is a serious question.: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 01:16:02Language doesn't follow a linear evolution from simple to complex. There are instead two competing factors - vocabulary and grammar - which tend to have an inverse relationship.
yawn.: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 01:16:02To be specific, in the absence of cross-cultural contact, a language's vocabulary will shrink, while its grammar becomes more defined and complex. When there is cross-cultural contact, borrowing of words occurs, resulting in an increase in vocabulary, usually accompanied by a de-emphasis in grammar, while grammatical constructions of the two languages are harmonized.
yawn: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 01:16:02The first spoken languages were not very standardized - that is, they were basically ad hoc constructions understood by only a few people. They were like the secret language you created with your best friend on the playground in 3rd grade, except they served a whole family, or whole town.
The first written languages were pictographic - that is, they began with stringing together pictures. From there, we see the beginnings of standardization - more than one group of people using the same set of pictures. We have a lot of this type of writing on record - cuneiform.
The invention of the first phonetic language came about with the synthesis between private spoken language, and standardized written language. This happened when the universal written language cuneiform was merged with regional voiced dialects across the Levant. Collectively, we know these languages as Semitic. Northern Semitic is generally credited as the earliest attested phonetic language, and the people who spoke it, the Phoenicians, gave their name to the invention. Phonetic language from Phoenicians. These people appear in your Bible, where they are called Canaanites rather than Phoenicians.
"my" Bible? not yours?
So, after all that, the phoenician language was the first spoken language in the sense we know language today?
WHEN? What year? what was used the year before?
What was the second?
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 01:16:02The first spoken word is unknowable, but the most likely, IMO, is H, which pictogram is a pointing hand. It means, "that."
Can you prove this?
Barbarian observes:
No one can say for sure if the flood story is an allegory or an actual event. However, there was a flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at about the right time, so I'm inclined to think it did happen.
It's strange that some people when reading Gods Word and hear Him say He will forgive our sins and take us up in heaven, they believe Him on His word.
But when people read Gods Word and hear Him tell us the story of the Flood, Creation, Plagues in Egypt etc, they wonder if those words may not be allegorical and proof is required.
The error there, is in assuming when God uses figurative language, what He says is not true. Parables and other figurative verses are as true as anything else in the Bible. But we can look at the evidence and learn something about God and His actions in the world.
Not sure if a serious question, but I can answer it if you're actually interested?
I was, and it was fascinating. I would like to hear more, if there's more that's relevant to the question.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 08:52:14
I was, and it was fascinating. I would like to hear more, if there's more that's relevant to the question.
I'm glad someone got something out of it. The fella I responded to sure didn't. It seems like it may have been a while since he opened the curtains and let any light shine in.
http://www.educatetruth.com/news/newly-discovered-human-footprints-undermine-evolutionary-assumptions/
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Additional problems for this story include a long-known fact that modern human footprints have been found in the same layers as the Australopithecine remains, dating some 3.6 million years old (the Laetoli Footprints)... which poses a problem since Australopithecines did not have human-like feet, but feet like tree-climbing chimps.
Now, it turns out, that actual human footprints have been found outside of Africa, in Crete of all places, dating at 5.7 million years old (The age of the footprints were analyzed using foraminifera, a method to analyze marine microfossils, as well as the position of the prints in the sedimentary layer where they were found which were dated by radiometric dating techniques – Link). This makes these footprints quite a bit older, by the dating methods used, than the supposed human ancestors in Africa that had yet to evolve detectably beyond what would today be recognized and nothing more than a tree-climbing chimp. The prints were originally discovered by Polish Geological Institute paleontologist Gerard Gierlinski, while he was on a Crete vacation in 2002. The prints have undergone over a decade of study since then. "The unique shape of the footprints found in Crete reflect a foot that supports upright-standing human beings. The long sole, short toes, one big toe, distinctive foot ball, and absence of claws of this print are undeniably human. If this was a print of a great ape it would more likely resemble a human hand."
The most reasonable conclusion is, of course, that all of these creatures lived at the same time... and that these sedimentary layers are not records of millions of years of time and evolution, but of shortly-spaced events in the geologic record.
https://world.wng.org/content/unexpected_footprints_deal_blow_to_evolution
Unexpected footprints deal blow to evolution
Researchers just discovered ancient human footprints on the Greek island of Crete that undermine the Darwinian theory of the descent of humans.
Per Ahlberg, one of the study authors, admitted in a statement, "This discovery challenges the established narrative of early human evolution head-on and is likely to generate a lot of debate."
The new discovery presents difficulties for evolutionary theory in two ways.
First, evolutionary scientists believe human beings originated in Africa and remained isolated there for a long time before they migrated to Europe and Asia. But the footprints could indicate humans trekked on the Greek island long before evolutionists thought they migrated out of Africa.
In light of creationists' differing viewpoints about the age of the Earth and the creation of human beings, it's not clear exactly what the study proves about early humans. But it serves to disprove Darwinian assumptions about where humans originated and how they spread out.
Second, the appearance of the footprints doesn't make sense within an evolutionary framework. The unique structure of the human foot—with a long sole, five short, forward-pointing toes, no claws, and a big toe larger than the other toes—does not appear in any other animal, including apes.
Evolutionary theory would expect human feet to appear later in the fossil record than other fossils without human feet. But the footprints on Crete are older than many fossils of animals that evolutionists consider the ancestors of modern humans.
Additional problems for this story include a long-known fact that modern human footprints have been found in the same layers as the Australopithecine remains, dating some 3.6 million years old (the Laetoli Footprints)... which poses a problem since Australopithecines did not have human-like feet, but feet like tree-climbing chimps.
You've been misled about that. While Australopithecine toes were somewhat different than those of modern humans, their toes and feet were far more like those of modern humans than like those of other apes. No opposable big toe, for example.
Though the prints found in Eritrea are believed to be the oldest Homo erectus footprints discovered to date, they are far from the oldest hominid prints known to exist. In the late 1970s, a team of archaeologists led by Mary Leakey found a trail of footprints measuring some 27 meters (88 feet) long, preserved in layers of wet volcanic ash in Laetoli, Tanzania. The 70 footprints in the trail were identified as 3.8-million-year-old tracks made by Australopithecus afarensis, the first of man's ancestors to walk upright.
http://www.history.com/news/archaeologists-discover-possible-homo-erectus-footprints-in-east-africa
Would you like me to show you some fossil Australopithine toes to see how they differ from apes and humans?
And those later hominins such as H. erectus were pretty much exactly like those of modern humans. We differ from H. erectus almost entirely in our skulls; the postcranial skeletons of H. sapiens and H. erectus are very similar.
Now, it turns out, that actual human footprints have been found outside of Africa, in Crete of all places, dating at 5.7 million years old
Crete was then not an island, but a part of the Mediterranean shore, so that's not so surprising.
The most reasonable conclusion is, of course, that all of these creatures lived at the same time... and that these sedimentary layers are not records of millions of years of time and evolution, but of shortly-spaced events in the geologic record.
That's a huge assumption, not supported by the evidence. As as you see from Laetoli, modern-looking feet are much more ancient than the genus Homo.
You can either believe in Creationism which is from God. Or evolution that is not from God. Will leave it at that.
: Jean74 Mon Nov 06, 2017 - 18:16:10
You can either believe in Creationism which is from God. Or evolution that is not from God. Will leave it at that.
Funny post after 30 pages of dialogue rofl
You can either believe in Creationism which is a modern revision of the Bble,. Or evolution that is the way God made the diversity of life we see. Will leave it at that.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter to your salvation, which one you accept.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 06, 2017 - 19:04:10
You can either believe in Creationism which is a modern revision of the Bble,. Or evolution that is the way God made the diversity of life we see. Will leave it at that.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter to your salvation, which one you accept.
So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian. The Apostle Paul prophesied otherwise however, concerning Barbarian and others of the like.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be
lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers,
false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.[/b][/u][/size]
What do Barbarian and his cohorts do but deny Moses' account of creation, the fall, and the flood. They are "
men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith", as Paul and the scriptures testify. According to them, Moses' accounts of the same are just stories with moral lessons, and certainly not the truth "
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." They argue against all evidence supporting Moses' accounts of these events, whether they be scriptural, historical, scientific. They choose to stand with Jannes and Jambres in defiance of Moses teachings given by the inspiration of God for humanity.
: Amo Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 09:46:28
So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian. The Apostle Paul prophesied otherwise however, concerning Barbarian and others of the like.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
What do Barbarian and his cohorts do but deny Moses' account of creation, the fall, and the flood. They are "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith", as Paul and the scriptures testify. According to them, Moses' accounts of the same are just stories with moral lessons, and certainly not the truth "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." They argue against all evidence supporting Moses' accounts of these events, whether they be scriptural, historical, scientific. They choose to stand with Jannes and Jambres in defiance of Moses teachings given by the inspiration of God for humanity.
Your sarcastic reply says nothing of which you claim.
http://www.icr.org/article/812/
Evolution and the Pope
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation
According to the Vatican Information Service in a news release on October 23, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is "more than just a theory." This seems to mean, despite the tenuous wording, that he now considers evolution a scientific fact. His written message to his science advisers, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks of "a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge" which have convinced him to make this bold statement supporting evolution and suggesting that his millions of followers do the same.
One cannot help suspecting that the recent spate of events and media articles "puffing" evolution is being orchestrated somewhere to combat the modern resurgence of creationism around the world. The facts are so trivial but the propaganda has been so high and mighty. There was that widespread furor, for example, about the lone Colorado student who had the temerity to ask his local school to tone down its dogmatic teaching of the naturalistic origin of life.
And what about the sudden media announcement that a small rock found in Antarctica has now "proved" that life has evolved all over the universe? There is also the widespread publicity about Bill Moyer's series of public telecasts rethinking Genesis. And a new series of anti-creationist articles in such establishment journals as Time, Harper's, Life, Scientific c American, Newsweek, and others.
Now comes the Pope with his "surprise" announcement that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe and teach evolutionism. He did include the small proviso that they should still allow God to create each human soul. Atheism thus remains inappropriate for Catholics, and that's a relief to know!
As a matter of fact, this public papal evolutionism is hardly a surprise to anyone who has followed the pronouncements of the last four popes, or who is familiar with the teachings of the various Catholic colleges and seminaries in this country. Even the last true conservative pope, Pius XII, in his famous 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, while not promoting evolutionism and still seeming to lean toward special creation, did make a point of allowing Catholics to study and accept evolution as a scientific theory of origins, again with the limitation that God created the soul, and that all men are descendants of Adam, along with the doctrine of original sin as inherited from Adam.
The freedom to study and teach evolution with this constraint seemed very quickly to result in the widespread acceptance of theistic evolutionism in Catholic institutions and churches everywhere. As far as the present pope, John Paul II, is concerned, he has been an evolutionist in this sense probably since his youth. Despite this sudden supposed surprising pontificating, it is nothing new to his personal beliefs.....................................
Perhaps the most influential evolutionist among Catholic theologians was the Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin, now considered in effect to be almost the "patron saint" of the New Age movement with his strong pantheistic evolutionism. Teilhard was involved in the controversial discoveries of both Piltdown Man and Peking Man, and vigorously promoted total evolutionism all his life, greatly influencing such leading secular evolutionists as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and Sir Julian Huxley. His books were banned at one time by the Catholic church but have apparently become respectable, and even very influential among Catholics during the reigns of the recent more liberal popes.
There have been many other leading evolutionary scientists in the domain of Catholicism, and this description would certainly apply to most of the scientists of the Pontifical Academy. On the other hand, we need to recognize that there are many strong creationists, not only among lay Catholics, but also among Catholic scientists as well. We could mention Dr. Guy Berthault of France, for example, whose studies on sedimentation have been profoundly significant in refuting geological uniformitarianism. Two Italian creationists, Dr. Roberto Fondi (paleontologist) and Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti (geneticist) have published important scientific books and papers refuting evolution. There are many others.
.............................
All cults and movements associated with the "new world order" of the so-called New Age Movement have two things in common—evolutionism as their base and globalism as their goal. It is disturbing now to see even many large evangelical movements (e.g., Promise Keepers, charismatic ecumenism) inadvertently drifting into the same orbit while eulogizing this evolutionist pope.
The pope insists, of course, that Catholic evolutionists must still believe that God started the universe with its Big Bang and still creates each human soul. The scientific establishment, however, will never be content ultimately with anything less than total evolutionism.
: Alan Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 10:00:37
Your sarcastic reply says nothing of which you claim.
There was no sarcasm involved.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/07/16/piltdown-hoax-said-to-involve-jesuit-scholar/badaebe9-20b5-46c6-9d03-afe85d5d3da2/?utm_term=.bb8782550317
The Piltdown Man Hoax, the most spectacular scientific fraud of the 20th century, was cooked up in part by the well-known French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Harvard historian of science has concluded.
Writing in the August issue of National History, magazine published by New York's American Museum of National History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould lays out a solid though circumstantial case that Teilhard was an active and willing accomplice of Charles Dawson, the British naturalist who has long been accused as the lone culprit in the hoax.
"I have found a pattern that seems hard to reconcile with his [Teilhard's] innocence," Gould writes after more than a year of scientific detective work in unearthing the French priest's role in the hoax. "My case is, to be sure, circumstantial, but I believe that the burden of proof must now rest with those who would hold Father Teilhard blameless."
: Amo Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 10:15:15
There was no sarcasm involved.
: Amo
So says the self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian.
Sounds pretty sarcastic to me, especially since he's never made such a claim.
So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian.
It is quite a serious thing for someone to claim to be a prophet of God. And as you know, I did not do that. I think you wrote without thinking about the implication, and I forgive you. Often, when someone posts something that makes me upset, I go away from the keyboard for a bit, and only respond later. It's kept me from embarrassing myself more than once.
By showing you the undeniable evidence for evolution, I am not in any way disparaging your faith in God. There are perfectly decent and God-loving Christians who are YE creationists. We should all have the humility and charity to realize that Christians are not united on this question, and to accept that it is not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of science or of creationism. Far as I know, no one here does that.
Let's treat each other with charity and respect.
Anyone claiming superior knowledge of the word of God to instruct others, is claiming to be a prophet of God. Moses, a prophet of God, says one thing about creation, the fall, and the flood, and you say another. Your claim is that you know what Moses really meant, which is not what He simply said. Who but a prophet can know for certain what another prophet really meant by his testimony, which is not what he plainly said. The prophet Moses could not express what you claim to know, and can and do express and tell humanity concerning our existence. How is it that one with such superior knowledge of God's word, would not be considered a prophet? You can explain what Moses, a prophet of God could not.
Anyone claiming superior knowledge of the word if God to instruct others, is claiming to be a prophet of God.
My wife was religious education director for our parish. I had no idea she was a prophet...
Moses, a prophet of God, says one thing about creation, the fall, and the flood, and you say another.
Nope. As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history. But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.
Your claim is that you know what Moses really meant, which is not what He simply said. Who but a prophet can know for certain what another prophet really meant by his testimony, which is not what he plainly said.
If so, every theologian in history was a prophet. I don't think so. Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be prophet, by your own measure?
We may disagree on whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable. Christians have always disagreed on this. It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree. And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 15:41:40
It is quite a serious thing for someone to claim to be a prophet of God. And as you know, I did not do that. I think you wrote without thinking about the implication, and I forgive you. Often, when someone posts something that makes me upset, I go away from the keyboard for a bit, and only respond later. It's kept me from embarrassing myself more than once.
By showing you the undeniable evidence for evolution, I am not in any way disparaging your faith in God. There are perfectly decent and God-loving Christians who are YE creationists. We should all have the humility and charity to realize that Christians are not united on this question, and to accept that it is not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of science or of creationism. Far as I know, no one here does that.
Let's treat each other with charity and respect.
You have not shown anyone any undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory. Your claim to be able to do so though, at the very least, is the claim of a prophet of God. You claim to reveal that which is undeniable. This is an attribute which belongs only to God, and those who serve Him. God alone will back this claim up with His personal presents and actions in the near future. Those who have served Him will be vindicated and justified at that time as those alone who presented the undeniable truth. They are the prophets of God, and will be proved to be so by God Himself when He returns to set all records straight. At that time, one of us will be revealed as a false prophet, and the other as a true prophet. Contrary to popular belief, it is not OK to preach and teach a lie, nor will any who do such enter the kingdom of heaven.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 15:59:08
My wife was religious education director for our parish. I had no idea she was a prophet...
Nope. As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history. But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.
If so, every theologian in history was a prophet. I don't think so. Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be prophet, by your own measure?
We may disagree on whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable. Christians have always disagreed on this. It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree. And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.
All who preach or teach the word of God, are professed prophets of God. One does not need to have a vision or communication directly from God to prophesy. All who claim to believe and teach what the scriptures proclaim, prophesy when they do so. Thus many who do so are false prophets who preach and teach the word according to their own understanding, rather than the plain testimony of the word of God or special revelation concerning the same.
Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 15:59:08
My wife was religious education director for our parish. I had no idea she was a prophet...
Nope. As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history. But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.
If so, every theologian in history was a prophet. I don't think so. Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be prophet, by your own measure?
We may disagree on whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable. Christians have always disagreed on this. It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree. And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.
None of the prophets or apostles ever disagreed at all over this issue. What you claim always existed, does not exist in scripture. It is a lie.
You have not shown anyone any undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory.
Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise says:
Evidences for Darwin's second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Even many YE creationists admit the fact.
Your claim to be able to do so though, at the very least, is the claim of a prophet of God.
No. It is scientific evidence, and has nothing to do with religious belief.
You claim to reveal that which is undeniable.
As you see, a YE creationist (who happens to be well-educated, with a PhD in paleontology) acknowledges the fact.
All who preach or teach the word of God, are professed prophets of God.
Perhaps you don't know what "prophet" means in Christian theology. All the OT prophets received their message directly from God. The last prophet was John the Baptist, who foretold the coming of Christ.
Our role as teachers is not to produce new revelations, but to spread the good news given by the prophets.
None of the prophets or apostles ever disagreed at all over this issue.
None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable. It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 17:52:48
Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise says:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Even many YE creationists admit the fact.
No. It is scientific evidence, and has nothing to do with religious belief.
As you see, a YE creationist (who happens to be well-educated, with a PhD in paleontology) acknowledges the fact.
Oh Kurt says, well that certainly makes evolution undeniable. Not.
No, YE creationists do not believe the millions of years scenario of gradual evolution which the theory requires. Change is real, the theory of evolution is false. There is nothing undeniable about it, but within the minds of those who think to highly of their own intellect and wisdom above all others.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 17:59:56
Perhaps you don't know what "prophet" means in Christian theology. All the OT prophets received their message directly from God. The last prophet was John the Baptist, who foretold the coming of Christ.
Our role as teachers is not to produce new revelations, but to spread the good news given by the prophets.
1 Corinthians 14King James Version (KJV)
14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts,
but rather that ye may prophesy. 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues
but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge,
or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:
but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
All should seek to prophesy, and all who expound upon scripture and claim knowledge enough to explain it to others prophesy. What will we share with humanity of the truth of God and His word that has not come to us by revelation from God Himself. All who share supposed truth from God which does not come from the revelation of God Himself, are false prophets. They preach, teach, and prophesy their own understanding in defiance and contradiction to the plain testimony of God's word.
Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.We either teach, preach, or prophesy under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, or under the influence of another. If our words are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God then they are truth and we will be justified in sharing them. If they are inspired from the evil one or self we will be condemned in sharing them, for they will be lies against the Holy Spirit of God who convicts all of the truths of God's word. Your evolutionary theory is found nowhere in scripture, and contradicts the plain testimony of Moses a prophet of God. Do you admit, that you have no inspiration from the Holy Spirit of God in stating that the theory of evolution is undeniable? Or do you claim to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God when you claim such?
So, we understand then, that you are a self-proclaimed prophet?
Quite a change from your claim that I was a self-proclaimed prophet.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 11, 2017 - 18:02:22
None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable. It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.
This is a lie, and complete denial of scriptural testimony. It has increasingly become an issue since the theory of evolution has been increasingly developed over the years, and has been accepted by professed "Christians". This was and is unavoidable because the theory of evolution and the scriptures contradict each other. Thus the increasing friction between the proponents of either. The bible does not support the theory of evolution at all, save in the minds of those who will make it so according to their own will and understanding.
Did SDA creationists write the book of Genesis, or any other parts of the scriptures which back up and or refer to it's testimony as established truth. YE creationism began at creation of course, and was written down for humanity by Moses in the first book of the bible. Your denial of this most obvious fact, reveals the depth of your own denial and deception. Here you are denying the existence of YE creation 4000 years after it was recorded by Moses the prophet of God. SDA's didn't make this stuff up, they believe exactly what Moses said, which you deny. Countless Jews and Christians have believed in YE creation throughout history. Your choice to deny this changes nothing.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 07:43:38
So, we understand then, that you are a self-proclaimed prophet?
Quite a change from your claim that I was a self-proclaimed prophet.
I prophesy concerning the teachings of scripture, you claim to be a prophet with new light. The light of long ages of evolution over the plain testimony of YE creation written by Moses. If what you say is true and revelation from God, then it is new light above and beyond scripture. I make no such claims. What I believe is based upon scripture, this alone is why it may be considered prophecy, because of scripture not me. What you believe and teach is not from scripture. It cannot be found anywhere in scripture, but by special revelation from God apparently, thus you claim special revelation do you not? If not what do you claim as the source of your revelation?
Not everything we encounter is written in the bible, nor do we need to stretch what scripture says in order to carry forth our beliefs.
: Alan Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 08:27:45Not everything we encounter is written in the bible, nor do we need to stretch what scripture says in order to carry forth our beliefs.
HEAR ! ! HEAR ! !
There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.
: Amo Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 08:34:31
There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.
Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't so, scripture fails to mention a heliocentric solar system, in fact it makes a few mentions of geocentrism related to an "unmovable earth", I'm sure at one time, many theologians discussed the unbiblical lie that the earth revolves around the sun. In time, evolution will be far more evident that can be verified even today, and the church will widely accept it because it is the truth.
: Alan Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 08:52:08
Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't so, scripture fails to mention a heliocentric solar system, in fact it makes a few mentions of geocentrism related to an "unmovable earth", I'm sure at one time, many theologians discussed the unbiblical lie that the earth revolves around the sun. In time, evolution will be far more evident that can be verified even today, and the church will widely accept it because it is the truth.
The explanation of our origins is written in the bible, evolutionists just reject what is written as untrue or just a story with moral implications. The bible does not attempt to explain the finer details of our solar system or the movement of its planets around the sun. It does specifically address our creation. Evolution is not verified today, it is only speculated and theorized, and proclaimed as fact by heady and high-minded individuals whom the bible predicted would arise. Those more sure of their own wisdom above and beyond that of the servants and prophets of God whose testimony we have in scripture.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
Entropy, Evolution or De-Evolution
Does the law of entropy (systems are breaking down; matter and energy are dissipating) rule against macroevolution? The evolutionist persistently argues that this is not the case:
· Evolutionary biology in no way runs counter to [the 2nd Law of] thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system, and it received a large amount of energy from the sun.
There is some truth to this. In limited ways, energy is transferred to life sources, which collect it. For example, plants can capture the sun rays and produce energy from them, although, on a grander scale, energy is dissipating.
However, this is not where the law of entropy spells death to the theory of macroevolution, which has hypothesized the large changes. One indication of the law of entropy is found in the deterioration of the genetic codes. Instead, of finding evolutionary development (an improvement in the genome and growth in complexity), we are finding the very opposite – de-evolution:
· Modern science has difficulty explaining why cells stop making perfect copies. This is because modern science assumes evolution to be a fact which requires a belief that we are increasing in complexity – evolving upwards. Therefore, cell reproduction should be getting better with time, not worse. Furthermore, if humans have been around for 1 million years (or more), then there have been over 20,000 generations of humans in existence. It is documented that every generation has between 100 and 1000 mistakes added to the DNA code. [John C. Stanford, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome," Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]
Breakdown of the species rather than development is what is found, as even evolutionists note:
· Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." She further explained in a 2011 interview:
• Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
Is evolution a fact, as some claim? Evidently, not:
· "There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens." (John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God," 107) (All the following quotations are taken from this masterful book!)
In short, there is no evidence for the increase of useful genetic information over time:
· "In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types [species, more or less]." (Siegfried Scherer)
· Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.
This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ! Even the in laboratory, where mutations can be induced, we have seen no net gain in genetic information:
· In his book, Grasse observed that fruit flies remain fruit flies in spite of thousands of generations that have been bred and all the mutations that have been induced in them...More recent work on the E. coli bacterium backs this up. In this research no real innovative changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacterium. (Lennox, 108)
Consequently, Bruce Malone concludes:
· "No experiment has ever shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes."
Even worse for the evolutionist, de-evolution is what has been observed in conformity with entropy. Malone cites the growing accumulation of genetic defects within the human genome:
· "This [collection of defects] is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation."
De-evolution is observed in many others ways. Instead of star creation, we have only observed star destruction:
· "We have never seen a star born, but we have seen hundreds die." (Kleiss)
Across the board, 98% of all species have disappeared:
· "One-third of all known species [of birds] on the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period...This evidence implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could possibly evolve into new types." (Kleiss)
De-evolution is the rule. It also confirms the Biblical account. God had made everything "very good" and without death. We have been degrading and dying ever since.
: Amo Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 10:13:43
Evolution is not verified today, it is only speculated and theorized, and proclaimed as fact by heady and high-minded individuals whom the bible predicted would arise.
You're still quite confused about the difference between speculation, hypothesis, and scientific theory, which is also known to be fact. Why deny the evidence? It's all around you. Your persistence here is much akin to the person that argues without any knowledge of a subject, a contrarian for short.
There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.
No getting protons or hemoglobin, or electricity out of scripture without stretching it. But like evolution, all of these are perfectly consistent with God's word in scripture. As someone else mentioned, not everything that's true is in the Bible.
: Amo Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 10:13:43
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
The author of that bit of nonsense would do himself well to actually take a decent course in thermodynamics. As it stands he shows himself to be largely ignorant on the subject.
Barbarian, regarding the prophets and apostles:
None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable. It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.
This is a lie, and complete denial of scriptural testimony.
It's very true. When Augustine wrote his commentary on Genesis, he acknowledged repeatedly trying to interpret it as a literal history, and concluded that it could not be a literal history. His book was widely published among Christians, and no one thought to argue with him about it. Only when YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century, was there a controversy.
It has increasingly become an issue since the theory of evolution has been increasingly developed over the years, and has been accepted by professed "Christians". This was and is unavoidable because the theory of evolution and the scriptures contradict each other.
There is not contradiction between God's word and His creation. We observe evolution happening. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Did SDA creationists write the book of Genesis,
They just re-interpreted it to fit their new doctrine of YE creationism. That doesn't mean that they aren't Christians. It just means that they are in error on that issue. I do not mean to disparage SDA believers; my interactions with them have shown me that they certainly are God-loving and sincere Christians.
Here's an oldie. Most YE creationists have abandoned the entropy argument against science, because it's so easily refuted.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
But if you doubt this, name one process, necessary for evolution, that is ruled out by anything in thermodynamics. Hint: there isn't one. But if you think there is, show us the process, and your numbers.
And since observed speciations have been noted to happen by mutation, Margulis is a bit behind the times. Even many YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a study that argues that new species, families, and genera happen through evolution.
: Alan Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 10:21:31
You're still quite confused about the difference between speculation, hypothesis, and scientific theory, which is also known to be fact. Why deny the evidence? It's all around you. Your persistence here is much akin to the person that argues without any knowledge of a subject, a contrarian for short.
That's a big fat negative. You are the one who is confused regarding fact and speculation. You are among those who believe that if you think it or choose to belleve it, it is so. There are the remains of dead things form the past buried all over the world. Some self aggrandizing individuals decided that similarities in design of the remains of these dead things mean that one thing turned into another, which turned into another, which turned into another over vast periods of time. A bunch of others who don't care much to think for themselves believed these self important and promoting individuals, and their constant efforts to shape all "evidence" into support for their prided theory. Many others who do actually think a little for themselves understand clearly that the boastings and ravings of the haughty are just that.
Countless millions of necessary transitional forms which should exist simply cannot be found. Many which are found and claimed to be such are later proved wrong under closer examination by evolutionists themselves who constantly argue and bicker among themselves regarding the same. Several frauds have been uncovered as well. We see absolutely no sign of advancing macro-evolution taking place anywhere on earth at all at present. We see constant decay and de-evolution going on around us right now and in the records of the past. As our own ability to more closely examine evidence continues to advance we find that all life is ever more increasingly complex than we ever imagined, making the mechanism of evolution less and less likely as the source of the same. Now we are finding flesh and tissue of dead things supposedly tens or hundreds of millions of years old, highly suggestive of them not being anywhere near as old as evolutionists adamantly declare.
The bible's testimony itself is that humanity was physically, mentally, and spiritually superior at our beginning, and have been degrading ever since. That all life was bigger, better, and lived longer than they do now. We even have the remains of a great many plant and animals which clearly reveal them to have been larger and physically superior to those of today. Most of the fossils all over the world are buried and preserved by catastrophe pointing to rapid burial by way of flood waters backing up the flood account. Even to the top of the highest mountains. This to is of course ignored and or declared untrue by the false claims of evolution by professed "bible believing Christians". No sir, what you believe is not fact at all, but within the confines of your own head, certainly not mine. Say it is fact as often as you wish, you will not convince me or any others who choose to think for themselves.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Did God speak the above commandment to Israel as the bible states? Did He write it with His own finger in stone as the bible states? Was He lying, or is this part of scripture not true or just a story according to you as well, since it's testimony contradicts your theory of evolution? Who is lying, you or the word of God? I know who I am sure is lying, but I am asking you? Is the account of the exodus true or not? Is it just another story to you with moral lessons like the creation, fall, and flood accounts? If so, just what do you consider to be true from the bible?
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 14:56:50
No getting protons or hemoglobin, or electricity out of scripture without stretching it. But like evolution, all of these are perfectly consistent with God's word in scripture. As someone else mentioned, not everything that's true is in the Bible.
Nor, as already stated, does the bible specifically address protons, hemoglobin, or electricity. It does specifically address and explain our origins. Which explanation you deny or relinquish to the status of a story with moral implications and lessons. No doubt you believe the same regarding the exodus account, seeing that God Himself is said to have backed the Genesis account of creation up by speaking the fourth commandment and writing it with His own hand in that account. If this were true, then according to your understanding, God lied. You must therefore consider the exodus account to be just a story as well, do you not? If not, please explain this dilemma.
: 4WD Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 15:03:56
The author of that bit of nonsense would do himself well to actually take a decent course in thermodynamics. As it stands he shows himself to be largely ignorant on the subject.
Of course he is, you said so didn't you. Perhaps you could supply a few details revealing that ignorance, rather than just a statement that he is. Are those he quoted ignorant as well? Why do you think so?
[John C. Stanford, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome," Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]
Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences:
John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God
(Siegfried Scherer)
Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London
Bruce Malone
(Kleiss)
Are all the people above who were quoted ignorant as well? do you know who they are and why they are ignorant? Please do expound.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 15:04:43
Barbarian, regarding the prophets and apostles:
None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable. It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.
It's very true. When Augustine wrote his commentary on Genesis, he acknowledged repeatedly trying to interpret it as a literal history, and concluded that it could not be a literal history. His book was widely published among Christians, and no one thought to argue with him about it. Only when YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century, was there a controversy.
There is not contradiction between God's word and His creation. We observe evolution happening. Truth cannot contradict truth.
They just re-interpreted it to fit their new doctrine of YE creationism. That doesn't mean that they aren't Christians. It just means that they are in error on that issue. I do not mean to disparage SDA believers; my interactions with them have shown me that they certainly are God-loving and sincere Christians.
Baloney! Many of them referred to the creation and the flood and never hinted in any way shape or form that they were not literal events. They are only and always spoken or referred to as such in scripture. God commanded Israel to keep His Sabbath which He spoke to them personally and wrote for them personally in commemoration of the very creation you deny. He even sent them warnings through his prophets and punished Israel for not beveling and obeying the fourth commandment which you claim is false. Your are willing to misrepresent the truth and the scriptures in order to support your precious theory of evolution.
Augustine was one man whom many did not agree with on many points. He also believed in forcing compliance of his own beliefs upon others. Not a shining example of common sense or proper understanding of the purpose and intent of the holy scriptures.
There is no contradiction between God's word and His creation, but there is a contradiction between the account of God's word concerning creation, and the theory of evolution. Only the most willingly ignorant would deny such obvious and blaring contradiction between the two accounts. The only way contradiction does not exist between the two, is to make the creation account in scripture a story or an allegory rather than a factual account. Which is exactly what every evolutionist does, exactly because leaving it literal creates blaring contradictions between the two.
Again, only a willingly and obstinately ignorant individual would declare that YE creationists re-inteperate the Genesis account when they take that account for exactly what it simply says, while claiming that evolutionists who take nothing of the account for exactly and simply what it says, actually do so. This is one of the most serious cases of denial and self delusion regarding the scriptures that there is. Get a grip Barbarian, how is taking words for exactly what they say, re-interperating them? Please do explain.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 15:13:07
Here's an oldie. Most YE creationists have abandoned the entropy argument against science, because it's so easily refuted.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
But if you doubt this, name one process, necessary for evolution, that is ruled out by anything in thermodynamics. Hint: there isn't one. But if you think there is, show us the process, and your numbers.
And since observed speciations have been noted to happen by mutation, Margulis is a bit behind the times. Even many YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a study that argues that new species, families, and genera happen through evolution.
More delusional observations. Yea, OK Barb, no can see or observe the constant death, decay, deterioration, breakdown, degradation, or decomposition going on constantly around us at all times. It is unobservable and is the exact opposite of what is really constantly observably going on in this world. Everything is continually getting better, more complex and efficient, smarter, stronger, larger, and even morally superior right before our very eyes just as should according to your precious theory of evolution. New species popping up all the time right before our eyes, and countless transitional forms living side by side with us in abundance. Again, you are in serious denial of the testimony of scripture in order to support your precious evolution.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The above of course cannot be true, since death is necessary to evolutionary change and advancement. Death is part of the evolutionary process of things getting better, not the result of sin unto degradation and decay. I could go on listing many more scriptures but I'm tired. I'll pick up on this thought again later. Just how was evolution going to work where there was no death or decay Barb? Or is death being the result of sin just another story with a lesson to you and yours? Again, just how much of the bible needs to be relinquished to the status of story time because of your precious theory of evolution?
: Amo Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 17:14:55
Of course he is, you said so didn't you. Perhaps you could supply a few details revealing that ignorance, rather than just a statement that he is. Are those he quoted ignorant as well? Why do you think so?
[John C. Stanford, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome," Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]
Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences:
John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God
(Siegfried Scherer)
Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London
Bruce Malone
(Kleiss)
Are all the people above who were quoted ignorant as well? do you know who they are and why they are ignorant? Please do expound.
I have a couple of degrees in Thermo and related fields. I spent most of my professional career in fields involving Thermo. Yes I know something about it.
Barbarian observes:
Here's an oldie. Most YE creationists have abandoned the entropy argument against science, because it's so easily refuted.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
But if you doubt this, name one process, necessary for evolution, that is ruled out by anything in thermodynamics. Hint: there isn't one. But if you think there is, show us the process, and your numbers.
And since observed speciations have been noted to happen by mutation, Margulis is a bit behind the times. Even many YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a study that argues that new species, families, and genera happen through evolution.
More delusional observations. Yea, OK Barb, no can see or observe the constant death, decay, deterioration, breakdown, degradation, or decomposition going on constantly around us at all times.
So here's your chance. Tell us what process, required for evolution, that's ruled out by thermodynamics. With your numbers.
Everything is continually getting better, more complex and efficient, smarter, stronger, larger, and even morally superior right before our very eyes
Actually, you've been misled about the nature of fitness. As even many creationists admit, natural selection tends to make a population more fit over time. That is, the individuals become increasingly likely to live long enough to leave offspring.
New species popping up all the time right before our eyes,
From time to time we see a new one that evolved from something else. Even many creationists admit that speciation is a fact. Would you like me to show you?
and countless transitional forms living side by side with us in abundance.
Indeed. Let's test my assertion. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form either in the fossil record or even living today.
Again, you are in serious denial of the testimony of scripture in order to support your precious evolution.
As you have seen, scripture is entirely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise?
Baloney! Many of them referred to the creation and the flood and never hinted in any way shape or form that they were not literal events.
It's quite possible that the flood was an actual event, although the Bible does not make it clear whether it is a parable or an actual event. However, the Bible does not say it was a global flood.
Augustine was one man whom many did not agree with on many points.
As I pointed out, not one theologian took issue with his conclusion when he published it. So you've been misled about that.
Again, only a willingly and obstinately ignorant individual would declare that YE creationists re-inteperate the Genesis account
It's just a fact. YE creationism is a modern doctrine, first invented in the 20th century.
Entropy, in terms of population genetics, is related to the amount of information in the population. In thermodynamics, the more ordered the system, the higher the entropy and the lower the information. This is also the way it works in population genetics.
In Claude Shannon's theory, the entropy of a message is the average amount of information from the source.
The entropy equation is:
(http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/compression/shannon2.jpg)
This equation tells us how to send reliable signals from a low-powered transmitter over billions of kilometers of space, and how to cram a maximum amount of data into a limited pipeline in a computer network. It also tells us how to evaluate the amount of information in a population of organisms.
In the case of a population, we can then calculate the information for a given gene locus by summing the information of the different alleles.
Suppose we have a population with two alleles at a give locus, each representing 50% of the population.
The information then, would be about 0.30.
Now suppose a new allele appears by mutation, and over time each allele has a 0.33333 frequency (each has a third of the population).
Now, the information would be about 0.48.
So, the premise of your source is demonstrably false. Any new mutation will increase the information in a population.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 18:41:34
Actually, you've been misled about the nature of fitness. As even many creationists admit, natural selection tends to make a population more fit over time. That is, the individuals become increasingly likely to live long enough to leave offspring.
Michael observes:
Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years and died. Seth lived nine hundred and twelve years and died. Enosh lived five years and died. Cainan lived nine hundred and ten years and died. Mahalalel lived ninety-five years and died. Jared lived nine hundred and sixty-two years and died. Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixty-nine years and died. Lamech lived seven hundred and seventy-seven years and died. Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years and died.
Then, after some more generations:
Abraham lived one hundred and seventy-five years and died. Ishmael lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died. Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years and died. Jacob lived one hundred and forty-seven years and died. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years and died. Levi lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died. Kohath lived one hundred and thirty-three years and died. Amram lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died.
Then we have:
Moses lived one hundred and twenty years and died. Joshua lived one hundred and ten years and died.
Later in the Psalms:
Psalm 90:10 The days of our lives are seventy years; And if by reason of strength they are eighty years, Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
What do you observe today, how long man lives before he dies?
[/quote]
What do you observe today, how long man lives before he dies?
A little longer then the three score and ten of Biblical times. If God prolonged the lives of certain people, He clearly didn't do it for everyone.
Our longer lifespans today are mostly the result of better nutrition and better medical care. However, there are a quite a number of favorable mutations that have made humans more fit in various environments, mutations that didn't exist in Biblical times. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Keep in mind, "fitness" isn't "living for a long time", but rather "living long enough to leave viable offspring." Once that's done, living a long time really doesn't matter.
We're still waiting for someone to tell us what process, required for evolution, that is ruled out by thermodynamics.
No one ever seems to be able to find one.
Alan guess I will take that as a compliment I guess! But still there is a difference between the both. ::smile::
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 21:40:16
A little longer then the three score and ten of Biblical times. If God prolonged the lives of certain people, He clearly didn't do it for everyone.
Our longer lifespans today are mostly the result of better nutrition and better medical care. However, there are a quite a number of favorable mutations that have made humans more fit in various environments, mutations that didn't exist in Biblical times. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Keep in mind, "fitness" isn't "living for a long time", but rather "living long enough to leave viable offspring." Once that's done, living a long time really doesn't matter.
Please address the observation:
Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years and died. Seth lived nine hundred and twelve years and died. Enosh lived five years and died. Cainan lived nine hundred and ten years and died. Mahalalel lived ninety-five years and died. Jared lived nine hundred and sixty-two years and died. Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixty-nine years and died. Lamech lived seven hundred and seventy-seven years and died. Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years and died.
Then, after some more generations, the generations from Noah:
Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be
one hundred and twenty years."
Abraham lived one hundred and seventy-five years and died. Ishmael lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died. Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years and died. Jacob lived one hundred and forty-seven years and died. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years and died. Levi lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died. Kohath lived one hundred and thirty-three years and died. Amram lived one hundred and thirty-seven years and died.
Then we have:
Moses lived one hundred and twenty years and died. Joshua lived one hundred and ten years and died.
We can see, that even while God said what He said in Genesis 6:3, men lived not exactly one hundred twenty years plus or minus a few years. And men then at that generation live for about that long, plus or minus. And we see that later, God also with the Psalm says the days of man's lives are seventy years, and may be longer for a few years. And up to this day, this has been what is observed, that men lives about that length of time.
It must be noted that the length of the life of man was not on account of evolution or by natural selection, but because God so have decreed according to His will and purpose. And it did not get longer but shorter.
If you believe this not nor accept this not from scriptures, and go with what you have learned from scientific minds, what does that tell us who believe in what the scriptures says about this matter?
I think you're a little off there Michael. Adam et al lived very long lives but did everyone from Adam's day live as long as he, or even more than a normal life expectancy? Could it be that God prolonged the lives of these men to fulfill their work on this earth?
And, as you learned before, evolution isn't about living a long time. It's about living long enough to leave descendants. And given that we have numerous examples of favorable mutations in humans that made them for fit, long after Biblical times, it's clear that humans are becoming more fit in their environments.
Which is what evolution is about.
: Alan Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 06:45:37
I think you're a little off there Michael. Adam et al lived very long lives but did everyone from Adam's day live as long as he, or even more than a normal life expectancy? Could it be that God prolonged the lives of these men to fulfill their work on this earth?
And if God prolonged the lives of these men, would that not tell us something significant about the life of men and what would that make of scientific observation pertaining to man?
But in answer to your question, all I can say is that, scriptures have it that from Adam to Noah, we have them said to have lived that long comparative to the generations after the great flood at Noah's time, and again after several generations after, to have gone down to still a shorter life span. That will be from about a thousand years down to less than a hundred years.
And if God prolonged the lives of these men, would that not tell us something significant about the life of men and what would that make of scientific observation pertaining to man?
Nothing at all. Science doesn't rule out the fact of miracles or divine intervention in the world.
But in answer to your question, all I can say is that, scriptures have it that from Adam to Noah, we have them said to have lived that long comparative to the generations after the great flood at Noah's time, and again after several generations after, to have gone down to still a shorter life span. That will be from about a thousand years down to less than a hundred years.
That's not what it says, though. The fact that God may have given some men longer lives doesn't rule out the fact that everyone else lived much shorter lives, or that modern humans are living longer than the Biblical life span.
Nor does it explain why modern humans have a number of new mutations that make them more fit than before.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 08:07:29
And, as you learned before, evolution isn't about living a long time. It's about living long enough to leave descendants. And given that we have numerous examples of favorable mutations in humans that made them for fit, long after Biblical times, it's clear that humans are becoming more fit in their environments.
Which is what evolution is about.
So, where does the effect of sin enters the picture? Where does the desire of man to live a longer, prosperous, happy life, enter the picture? Where does the desire even for eternal life enter the picture?
If that is what evolution is all about, about living long enough to leave descendants, with regards to man, how does that then go with this:
Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "
Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
They were evidently not commanded to evolve to be fruitful and multiply. They simply were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, that is, their kind, not to be another kind. I wonder if perhaps they should have evolve to be able to bear more children at one reproduction stage so as to multiply even faster. But if I'm not mistaken, man have even gone as far as to slow down on reproduction, even practicing abortion.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 08:55:17
That's not what it says, though. The fact that God may have given some men longer lives doesn't rule out the fact that everyone else lived much shorter lives, or that modern humans are living longer than the Biblical life span.
You may say that the fact that God may have given some men longer lives doesn't rule out the fact that everyone else lived much shorter lives, but that certainly would make God the one who determines the life of man.
Job 14:5 Since
his days are determined,
The number of his months is with You;
You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.
Job 12:10
In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?
So, you don't believe the scriptures?
Perhaps you don't observe what's in scriptures. That the generation of Adam until Noah's generation, they are said to have lived around a thousand years. Then God, about the time of the great flood, the generations that followed lived to only around one hundred twenty years. And around the time when the Psalms were written, the generations that followed live to only around less than a hundred years.
If you'll consider to observe, when God cut short or prolong the life of these men whose length of life was mentioned in scriptures, scriptures so say. But the men mentioned in my post, were men who lived until their natural death.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 08:55:17
And if God prolonged the lives of these men, would that not tell us something significant about the life of men and what would that make of scientific observation pertaining to man?
Nothing at all. Science doesn't rule out the fact of miracles or divine intervention in the world.
Why am I not surprised to hear that?
If science doesn't rule out the
fact of miracles. Oh wait a minute, is the word "fact" there refers to to scientific fact or what? Anyway, when do scientist or science take one as a miracle? Does not the scientist say, with regards miracle or divine supernatural events, that they don't deal with that? Now, may I ask you, do you believe creation to be a miracle or not? Do you not say that evolution is a creation process?
So, where does the effect of sin enters the picture?
Original sin removed our innocence, and at once made us like God, but completely unable to be wholly good. That spiritual death that God spoke of to Adam ( you will die the day you eat from that tree) separated us from Him and made a Redeemer necessary.
Where does the desire of man to live a longer, prosperous, happy life, enter the picture?
The happiest people seem to be those who don't worry about long life or prosperity. St. Francis of Assisi cared for little of that, and was remarkably happy. It's human nature to want stuff and to live as long as possible. But that's not why we are here.
Where does the desire even for eternal life enter the picture?
All men yearn for God, even if they don't want to admit it.
If that is what evolution is all about, about living long enough to leave descendants,
It's just a physical process. Like gravity or the seasons. It has nothing to do with our spiritual life.
They were evidently not commanded to evolve
They weren't commanded to breathe or to form communities, either. I figure He knew that would happen. If we have evolved, as we have since the beginning, it doesn't seem to be of any concern to God. If Neandertals were also human, they and we evolved differently. I doubt if God ceased to love one or both groups because of it.
I wonder if perhaps they should have evolve to be able to bear more children at one reproduction stage so as to multiply even faster.
If so, we took a very long time to do it. Human population didn't really take off until a few hundred years ago.
But if I'm not mistaken, man have even gone as far as to slow down on reproduction, even practicing abortion.
Abortion, abhorrent as it is, takes a back seat to war and oppression as means of reducing population.
Barbarian observes:
Nothing at all. Science doesn't rule out the fact of miracles or divine intervention in the world.
Why am I not surprised to hear that?
Because science is methodologically naturalistic, not ontologically naturalistic. That is, science is unable to consider the supernatural, but cannot deny that the supernatural exists.
If science doesn't rule out the fact of miracles.
That's right. It doesn't.
Oh wait a minute, is the word "fact" there refers to to scientific fact or what?
Facts are just data.
Anyway, when do scientist or science take one as a miracle?
Most of us consider the initial creation as a miracle, for example. And the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to His will. This particular scientist considers the immaculate conception and the Resurrection as miracles. If this puzzles you, consider that while science can't consider the supernatural, scientists can.
Does not the scientist say, with regards miracle or divine supernatural events, that they don't deal with that?
No. They admit that science can't. But as I said, scientists can.
Now, may I ask you, do you believe creation to be a miracle or not?
It's a common issue for nonbelievers, who can't distinguish between the creation ex nihilo, and the creation God did from things He already created. Hence, living things came from the earth, not ex nihilo. You and I, as far as our physical bodies, were created naturally, but our souls were given directly by God.
Do you not say that evolution is a creation process?
It absolutely is. God uses nature for most things He does in this world. Nature is also a miracle, although we often forget that it is.
http://creationwiki.org/Out-of-place_artifact
Out-of-place artifact
https://www.genesisalive.com/flood-artifacts.html
Human Artifacts In the Layers
http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-fossils-found-wrong-place/
Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
https://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place
Are fossils ever found in the wrong place?
http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_Occurring_Fossils
Anomalously Occurring Fossils
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
: 4WD Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 18:27:02
I have a couple of degrees in Thermo and related fields. I spent most of my professional career in fields involving Thermo. Yes I know something about it.
That doesn't really answer the question I asked. Nor do others with the same degrees you have and more no doubt, believe as you do. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of degrees out there, all telling different stories.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 18:41:34
Barbarian observes:
Here's an oldie. Most YE creationists have abandoned the entropy argument against science, because it's so easily refuted.
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html
But if you doubt this, name one process, necessary for evolution, that is ruled out by anything in thermodynamics. Hint: there isn't one. But if you think there is, show us the process, and your numbers.
And since observed speciations have been noted to happen by mutation, Margulis is a bit behind the times. Even many YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a study that argues that new species, families, and genera happen through evolution.
So here's your chance. Tell us what process, required for evolution, that's ruled out by thermodynamics. With your numbers.
Actually, you've been misled about the nature of fitness. As even many creationists admit, natural selection tends to make a population more fit over time. That is, the individuals become increasingly likely to live long enough to leave offspring.
From time to time we see a new one that evolved from something else. Even many creationists admit that speciation is a fact. Would you like me to show you?
Indeed. Let's test my assertion. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form either in the fossil record or even living today.
As you have seen, scripture is entirely consistent with evolution. How could it be otherwise?
No, scripture is not entirely consistent with evolution but in your twisted and conceited head. You do not know better than the prophets of God, and evolution if it were true, is certainly not to hard for God's prophets to explain to humanity as the mechanism of our being.
https://answersingenesis.org/physics/second-law-of-thermodynamics/
As mentioned earlier, the second law of thermodynamics can be expressed many different ways. We do not have time to discuss most of these, but it is important to discuss one. An important manifestation of entropy is that it measures the amount of disorder. Since entropy continually increases, or at least cannot decrease, it follows that disorder must increase, or at least not decrease. If disorder cannot decrease, then order cannot increase. It is this version of the second law of thermodynamics that leads to discussion of the naturalistic origin of life and biological evolution. Living organisms obviously are highly ordered systems, far more ordered than non-living things. The naturalistic origin of life would require that non-living things gave rise to living things, which would amount to an increase in order and thus would appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, biological evolution would be the development of life over time, which involves increasing order, which also appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Evolutionists have offered various theories of how the naturalistic origin and development of life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. One approach is to note that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Living things are continually exchanging both energy and matter with their surroundings, so they clearly are open systems or occasionally closed systems, but are not isolated systems. However, merely being an open system does not automatically mean that entropy decreases. Life depends upon a huge number of complex biochemical reactions continually operating. These biochemical reactions operate opposite to the direction that they would naturally proceed. That is, living things synthesize simpler molecules into more complex ones. The inputs are matter (the less complex molecules) and energy (required to bond the more complex molecules), which is why living things are open systems. However, these inputs are insufficient in themselves to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics. The direction of the chemical reactions normally is decay from the more complex to simpler molecules, the opposite of what living things require to exist. How do they do this? Living things have complex machinery in the form of organelles (within cells) and structures such as tissue, organs, and systems (in the case of multi-celled organisms that convert matter and energy into the complex molecules required for life). Ultimately, the construction and operation of these machines is regulated by DNA, also included within cells. Both the physical machinery and the coded instructions represented a tremendous amount of order within living things. Some people call this order information. How could this order or information come about naturally?
The physical chemist Ilya Prigogine (1917–2003) wrote extensively on dissipative structures as a mechanism that he thought would bring about self-organization. Dissipative structures (a term coined by Prigogine) refers to structures that that can come about when an environment is far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Self-organization describes an orderly arrangement that occasionally appears to arise in matter spontaneously. A crystal is the best example of this. For instance, salt dissolved in water can form into crystals, an orderly array of units of sodium chloride. However, there are at least two problems with this analogy to living things. First, the salt + water system is an open system. It can and does exchange energy and matter with its surroundings in order to precipitate salt crystals. That is, salt crystals do not spontaneously form from a salt water solution. Second, crystals are simply ordered sequences which contain very little actual information. Salt crystals lack specified complexity, i.e., their structure is caused by the properties of their constituent parts and not imposed by some outside intelligent process as is the case for living organisms.
Nevertheless, Prigogine and others have argued that materials that formed into the first living things somehow organized themselves this way, though it is not clear at all how, given that these materials do not form ionic bonds as crystals do. Furthermore, any simple structures that might occasionally form small ordered regions fall many orders of magnitude short of the complexity required for any form of life. Evolutionists argue that selective effects, such as those that supposedly drive evolution, could preserve and accumulate this order until finally life came about. However, even crystals that form out of solution, such as salt, cease to produce any more order once they form. If anything, once crystals form, they accumulate defects in their crystal structure, which is less ordered and hence follows the second law of thermodynamics. That is, even open systems generally follow the second law of thermodynamics. To expect that life somehow developed from this is a gross extrapolation. Despite this, Prigogine received the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on this.
In similar manner, evolutionists propose that once enough order arose to allow for DNA and the machinery of cells, further random changes led to increased order. Again, the appeal is made to the magic of open systems. But merely being an open system in not sufficient to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The moment after a living thing dies, the machinery and coded instructions still remain. Furthermore, a just-deceased organism is capable of exchanging matter and energy with its surroundings, making it still an open system. However, the indescribable spark of life is absent, and the machinery no longer works. The chemical reactions go in the direction that will re-establish thermodynamic equilibrium, and the molecules become less complex, not more complex. Given this, the appeal to an open system to rescue the day for evolution is not demonstrated and amounts to hand-waving and gross extrapolation.
Unfortunately, not all discussions of the second law of thermodynamics and biological evolution from a creation perspective have been as well thought out and presented as they ought to have been. Hence, both sides have committed some errors. The problem for creationists is that we have yet to generate a rigorously formulated entropy-based hypothesis that clearly shows that life cannot arise through natural undirected processes. However, evolutionists generally have failed to produce a reasonable argument which agrees with observation that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution.
: Amo Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 08:42:31That doesn't really answer the question I asked. Nor do others with the same degrees you have and more no doubt, believe as you do. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of degrees out there, all telling different stories.
If they think evolution somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics, then yes they are ignorant about the laws of thermodynamics. The biological sciences are not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 19:36:10
It's quite possible that the flood was an actual event, although the Bible does not make it clear whether it is a parable or an actual event. However, the Bible does not say it was a global flood.
As I pointed out, not one theologian took issue with his conclusion when he published it. So you've been misled about that.
It's just a fact. YE creationism is a modern doctrine, first invented in the 20th century.
Your self imposed blindness, has made you completely delusional. There is no truth at all in anything you said above. Are you Catholic? It would explain a lot if you were.
: Amo Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 08:52:41From answersingenesis:
As mentioned earlier, the second law of thermodynamics can be expressed many different ways. We do not have time to discuss most of these, but it is important to discuss one. An important manifestation of entropy is that it measures the amount of disorder. Since entropy continually increases, or at least cannot decrease, it follows that disorder must increase, or at least not decrease. If disorder cannot decrease, then order cannot increase. It is this version of the second law of thermodynamics that leads to discussion of the naturalistic origin of life and biological evolution. Living organisms obviously are highly ordered systems, far more ordered than non-living things. The naturalistic origin of life would require that non-living things gave rise to living things, which would amount to an increase in order and thus would appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, biological evolution would be the development of life over time, which involves increasing order, which also appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
That perfectly illustrates that the author there was ignorant about Thermodynamics, and I mean IGNORANT. When you use your refrigerator to make ice, order is increased and the entropy of that water decreases. In fact just cooling everything down in the refrigerator causes the entropy of everything in the refrigerator to decrease. When an acorn germinates and with the nutrients and moisture in the soil grows into a mighty oak tree, order has increased substantially and the entropy of the result has decreased. Entropy decreases all the time. It is only in a closed system that entropy must increase or at least remain unchanged. Now in fact, there really is no such thing as a "closed system"; one that completely unaffected by any external influence. It is a mathematical construct. The earth is not a closed system.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 12, 2017 - 19:45:41
Entropy, in terms of population genetics, is related to the amount of information in the population. In thermodynamics, the more ordered the system, the higher the entropy and the lower the information. This is also the way it works in population genetics.
In Claude Shannon's theory, the entropy of a message is the average amount of information from the source.
The entropy equation is:
(http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/compression/shannon2.jpg)
This equation tells us how to send reliable signals from a low-powered transmitter over billions of kilometers of space, and how to cram a maximum amount of data into a limited pipeline in a computer network. It also tells us how to evaluate the amount of information in a population of organisms.
In the case of a population, we can then calculate the information for a given gene locus by summing the information of the different alleles.
Suppose we have a population with two alleles at a give locus, each representing 50% of the population.
The information then, would be about 0.30.
Now suppose a new allele appears by mutation, and over time each allele has a 0.33333 frequency (each has a third of the population).
Now, the information would be about 0.48.
So, the premise of your source is demonstrably false. Any new mutation will increase the information in a population.
https://creation.com/mutations-new-information
Can mutations create new information?
by Dr Robert W. Carter
In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes 'mutations'. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of 'biological information'. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by 'new' and 'information'. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!....................................
Now we can address the main question, "Can mutations create new genetic information?"
1) God was not limited to creating static genomes, in the same way that He was not limited to creating fixed species.10 In the 1800s, Darwin pushed back against the popular idea that God created all species in their present form. The Bible does not teach 'fixity of species', of course; this idea came from the teachings of older scientists and philosophers, primarily rooted in the writings of Aristotle.11 Today, most creationists do not have trouble with non-fixity of species. Evolutionists constantly attempt to bring up the straw man argument that we believe in species stasis, even comparing us to people who believed in a flat earth, but both of these are historical myths.12 Most people throughout history believed the earth was round, and there were creationists, like Linnaeus13 and Blyth,14 prior to Darwin who believed species could change (though not beyond a certain limit). CMI, in particular, have published articles and one DVD15 on the subject of how species change over time and have an entire section on the topic on our Q&A page.16 Here is an important question: if species can change, what about their genomes?
Not only are species not fixed, but more than several articles have been published in this journal alone on the topic of non-static genomes, including recent articles by Alex Williams,17 Terborg,18 Jean Lightner,19 Evan Loo Shan,20 and others. It looks like God engineered into life the ability to change DNA. This occurs through homologous crossover, jumping genes (retrotransposons,21 ALUs, etc.), and other means (including the random DNA spelling errors generally called 'mutations'). Terborg has coined a phrase, 'variation inducing genetic elements' (VIGEs)22 to describe the intelligently-designed genetic modules God may have put into the genomes of living things to induce DNA sequence changes (figure 2).
2) Creationists are making a strong case that genomes are not static and that the DNA sequence can change over time, but they are also stating that some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves. In other words, not all changes are accidental, and a large proportion of genetic 'information' is algorithmal. If a change occurs in DNA through an intelligently-designed algorithm, even an algorithm designed to make random, but limited, changes, what do we call it? Mutation originally simply meant 'change' but today it carries a lot of extra semantic baggage. Can we say that a mechanism designed by God to create diversity over time within a species can be a cause of 'mutation', with its connotation of unthinking randomness? In fact, there is considerable evidence that some mutations are repeatable23,24 (that is, not wholly random) (figure 3). This suggests the presence of some genomic factor designed to control mutation placement in at least some cases. If that something causes an intentional change in the DNA, do we call that a 'mutation' or an 'intelligently engineered change in the DNA sequence'? Of course, random mutations still occur, and these are mostly due to the error rate of the DNA replication and repair machinery....................................
3) There could be a considerable amount of information stored in the genome in compressed, hidden form. When this information is decompressed, deciphered, revealed, or unscrambled (call it what you will), this cannot be used as evidence for evolution, since the information was already stored in the genome.
Take the information God put into Adam and Eve. An evolutionist looks at any DNA difference as a result of mutation, but God could have put a significant amount of designed variation directly into Adam and Eve. There are millions of places in the human genome that vary from person to person, the majority of this variation is shared among all populations,25 and most of these variable positions have two common versions (A or G, T or C, etc.).26 The bulk of these should be places where God used perfectly acceptable alternate readings during the creation of man. These are not mutations!
The in-built alternatives God put into Adam and Eve are scrambled over time, and new traits (even many good ones not previously in existence) might arise during this process. How? One way is through a process called 'homologous recombination'. People have two sets of chromosomes. Let's say a certain portion of one of Adam's chromosome #1 reads 'GGGGGGGGGG' and codes for a green-colored something-or-other. The other copy of chromosome 1 reads 'bbbbbbbbbb' and codes for a blue something-or-other, but blue is recessive. Someone with one or two copies of the all-G chromosome will have a green something-or-other. Someone with two copies of the all-b chromosome will have a blue something-or-other. In the early population, about three quarters of the people will have the green version and about one quarter will have the blue version.
How, then, does this process produce new traits? Homologous chromosomes are recombined from one generation to the next through a process called 'crossing over'. If a crossing over event occurred in the middle of this sequence, we might get one that reads 'GGGGGbbbbb' that causes the production of a purple something-or-other. This is a brand new thing, a new trait never seen before. This is the result of a change in the DNA sequence and we will not be able to tell the difference between this crossing over event and a 'mutation' until we can sequence the piece of DNA in question. Thus, new traits (sometimes incorrectly or colloquially referred to as 'genes') can arise through homologous recombination.27 But this is not mutation. Recombination is part of the intelligently-designed genome and usually only reveals information that was previously packed into the genome by the Master Designer (it can also reveal new combinations of mutations and designed diversity). Also, recombination is not random,28,29 so there is a limit to the amount of new traits that can come about in this way........................................................
Conclusions
Can mutation create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by 'information'. Also, 'new' does not necessarily imply 'better' or even 'good'. When evolutionists cite examples of 'new' information, they are almost invariably citing evidence of new traits, but these traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes.
In all the examples I have seen used to argue against creation, evolution is not helped. There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes. In fact, it looks like all examples of gain-of-function mutations, put in light of the long-term needs of upward evolutionary progress, are exceptions to what is needed, because every example I have seen involves something breaking.
We as creationists have the upper hand here. If we treat this properly, we can score a great victory in our long war for truth. The genome is not what evolution expected. The examples of mutations we have are not of the types required for evolution to advance. Evolution has to explain how the four-dimensional genome, with multiple overlapping codes and chock full of meta-information, came about. Can a mutation create new information? Perhaps, but only in the most limited sense. Can it create the kind of information needed to produce a genome? Absolutely not!
: Alan Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 06:45:37
I think you're a little off there Michael. Adam et al lived very long lives but did everyone from Adam's day live as long as he, or even more than a normal life expectancy? Could it be that God prolonged the lives of these men to fulfill their work on this earth?
I think your a little off here Alan. Scripture clearly denotes a downward trend in life span of those separated from the tree of life in successive generations for any true believers with common sense. The flood itself producing the most drastic decrease due no doubt to the serious changes in many and various aspects of our world due to the same.
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived
were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth
were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11 And all the days of Enos
were nine hundred and five years: and he died. 12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel: 13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14 And all the days of Cainan
were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. 15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: 17 And all the days of Mahalaleel
were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died. 18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 20 And all the days of Jared
were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died. 21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 23 And all the days of Enoch
were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. 25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech. 26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Methuselah
were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. 28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. 30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31 And all the days of Lamech
were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.....................................
Gen 9:28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died....................................
Gen 11:10 These are the generations of Shem:
Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11 And
Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12 And
Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13 And
Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14 And
Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16 And
Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18 And
Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20 And
Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22 And
Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24 And
Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. 28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. 30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 32
And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 08:07:29
And, as you learned before, evolution isn't about living a long time. It's about living long enough to leave descendants. And given that we have numerous examples of favorable mutations in humans that made them for fit, long after Biblical times, it's clear that humans are becoming more fit in their environments.
Which is what evolution is about.
More delusional thoughts from one who believes when he speaks delusions, people learn the truth. The blind leading all who will follow them straight into the ditch.
Mt 5:3 But he answered and said unto them,
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.Do you not make the fourth commandment of none effect by denying its claim? Yes you do. Your theory of evolution is a doctrine which makes the fourth commandment of none effect. You worship the God of the bible in vain, and are a blind leader of all the blind willing to follow your false doctrines or "science".
: 4WD Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 08:55:06
If they think evolution somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics, then yes they are ignorant about the laws of thermodynamics. The biological sciences are not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.
Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University and taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for over 26 years. He serves as editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and has published over 100 papers in various journals. He now works as a researcher, author, and speaker for Answers in Genesis.
Like I said, there are all kinds if people with all kinds f degrees, that contradict each other, and claim the other guy is ignorant. Welcome to the club.
: Amo Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 10:12:28
Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University and taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for over 26 years. He serves as editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and has published over 100 papers in various journals. He now works as a researcher, author, and speaker for Answers in Genesis.
Like I said, there are all kinds if people with all kinds f degrees, that contradict each other, and claim the other guy is ignorant. Welcome to the club.
Obviously, based upon the statement given, he doesn't understand that the entropy of water decreases when it freezes, no matter how many degrees he has and papers he as written.
https://tinyurl.com/y8wxvm9y
Man/women has always been as we are today. I do not believe in "evolution" as it is depicted in the link below
https://tinyurl.com/y8wxvm9y
Do you? (:-
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 15:14:46
Michael asked:
Anyway, when do scientist or science take one as a miracle?
Most of us consider the initial creation as a miracle, for example. And the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to His will.
Michael asked:
Now, may I ask you, do you believe creation to be a miracle or not?
It's a common issue for nonbelievers, who can't distinguish between the creation ex nihilo, and the creation God did from things He already created. Hence, living things came from the earth, not ex nihilo. You and I, as far as our physical bodies, were created naturally, but our souls were given directly by God.
Michael asked:
Do you not say that evolution is a creation process?
It absolutely is. God uses nature for most things He does in this world. Nature is also a miracle, although we often forget that it is.
So you believe that the
"initial"creation is a miracle work of God. You even say and believe that the
world is also a miracle in the way it works according to the will of God. And you even say and believe that our souls were given directly by God, which I suppose you believe is miraculous.
And you believe nature is also a miracle. That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation? Do you think you scientist can? If not, then why, when all that will come of such work will then all be but speculations and guesses, if not lies as they will obviously be false from the very start?
And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?
: Michael2012 Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 14:04:43And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?
"miracle" is a manmade word. It is a word of "fiction" & has its place but in the real world "miracles" do not exist.
at lest in my view (:-
So you believe that the "initial"creation is a miracle work of God.
What makes you think it's not?
You even say and believe that the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to the will of God.
Do you not understand that we would not even exist if God took His mind from us?
And you even say and believe that our souls were given directly by God, which I suppose you believe is miraculous.
If you think that your soul is a mere epiphenomenon of your nervous system, I'd have to say you were completely wrong.
And you believe nature is also a miracle.
It is. What we call "nature" is this place God created with particular rules by which everything works. But it's still His creation.
That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation?
It's very simple. Science can't address the miraculous. But scientists can. If this puzzles you, we need to talk about that, first.
And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?
Science is limited to the natural universe. So science can study man as a physical phenomenon. But that part of us that is supernatural is forever beyond science.
Again, if this puzzles you, you're stuck in an ontological dead end. Should we discuss this further?
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 21:31:55
That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation?
It's very simple. Science can't address the miraculous. But scientists can. If this puzzles you, we need to talk about that, first.
No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science. Isn't it Obviously an exercise in futility? And evidently it is, for after thousands of years and up to present, no scientist can scientifically explain the origin of all things, more so, life.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 21:31:55
And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?
Science is limited to the natural universe. So science can study man as a physical phenomenon. But that part of us that is supernatural is forever beyond science.
Again, if this puzzles you, you're stuck in an ontological dead end. Should we discuss this further?
Yes, you can say that with regards the physical part of man. My point is that, science can't really know what man is, and therefore can't explain what man is. However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?
The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam. Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.
: Michael2012 Sat Nov 18, 2017 - 23:17:52However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?
What makes you think that those things are "spiritual more than are physical"? Please explain.
The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam.
How does man do that? How does sin and death affect the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam? How exactly would the whole of creation be different from what it is now? Please explain. And please be specific and cite your evidence or proof.
Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.
How would you propose to treat any disease, say cancer, from your knowledge and faith in the power of the Creator? Again, please be specific since apparently you are being critical of what is being done from the point of view of science.
Also, remembering your long harangues about faith, what exactly do you mean when you say "man begins to put his faith more in science...."?
: 4WD Sun Nov 19, 2017 - 05:08:48
However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?
What makes you think that those things are "spiritual more than are physical"? Please explain.
I was referring to the spiritual senses and experience of man, which is expressed through the physical part of man. Things such as love, hate, sadness, happiness, understanding, among others. That even while these things are expressed in the physical, they are really matters of the spirit than are of the physical part of man.
: 4WD Sun Nov 19, 2017 - 05:08:48
The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam.
How does man do that? How does sin and death affect the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam? How exactly would the whole of creation be different from what it is now? Please explain. And please be specific and cite your evidence or proof.
You are aware of my understanding of what scriptures says about the result of Adam's sin. Must I expound on this here when we have gone through that several times in different threads and we are clearly not in agreement and remain to be so? It would just be a vain repetition of ourselves here and still will not have a common understanding. Let me just give you an example. Before the fall of Adam, man was given by God every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed for food, and to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, God have given every green herb for food. But because Adam sinned, such order changed. See what man now eats, and what other living creatures eats, which in the original order, they only have what God gave them as food. And whatever that comes in the body, so it affects the body, some good, some bad, for the body. Those bad I suspect are which that brings illness and disease to the body. And that, because of the fall of Adam.
: 4WD Sun Nov 19, 2017 - 05:08:48
Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.
How would you propose to treat any disease, say cancer, from your knowledge and faith in the power of the Creator? Again, please be specific since apparently you are being critical of what is being done from the point of view of science.
Also, remembering your long harangues about faith, what exactly do you mean when you say "man begins to put his faith more in science...."?
Man can learn from scriptures what God gave man for food in the beginning. I believe that if we just put such knowledge into practice, we will perhaps not fall ill and most likely will not catch any disease. And should we get sick, we can go to God and pray that He heals us by His power or lead us how we can get healing.
Now, should we get some disease, it is most likely because of the pollution everywhere that man have caused, in the food we eat and in the air we breath, and the destruction of the earthly environment we live in. And as new pollutants come about, new kinds of diseases emerge, and obviously no cure is known to man. But instead of going to God for deliverance through faith, man tries to solve the problem and do some experiments here and there, to device what they think is a cure. This is what I mean when I said "man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator".
And I guess you know that, that is not at all what God wants man to do in the midst of all these. What God wants is for us to go to Him and ask for His mercy and grace, that He heals us and deliver us from whatever it is we are suffering on this earth. God wants us to put our faith in Him, not in anything nor in anyone else.
No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science.
If they do, they aren't very good scientists. All the scientists I know, readily point out what I've shown you; science is limited to the physical universe.
Yes, you can say that with regards the physical part of man. My point is that, science can't really know what man is
It can see what man is. It just can't see everything man is. But of course scientists can.
However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?
What makes you think that these are more spiritual than physical?
The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam. Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.
I don't know of any scientists who do this.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 19, 2017 - 21:36:07
No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science.
If they do, they aren't very good scientists. All the scientists I know, readily point out what I've shown you; science is limited to the physical universe.
When an "unbeliever", even a "believer" for that matter, is immersed in living in sin, what do we observe? We observe that, the more he don't realize that he is living in sin and finds himself getting farther and farther away from God. The same with an "unbeliever" scientist. The more he is immersed into science, into say trying to find out how things came to be or how life came to be, the more he don't realize that he is so into science, and finds himself farther and farther away from the Creator, the one who has complete, correct, and perfect knowledge of how things came to be, how they work and what their purpose is. And the more he is into that, the more he falls into the pit of deception, thinking that he can know what God knows or that he can know the mind of God, by science. He is ever wanting to be wise, under the guise for his good intention for all humanity and the world. And so, the atheist scientist or the "unbeliever" scientist says "there is no God", in effect denying the Christ, and further says "do this and do that, do not do this and do not do that" because this is what we discovered and learned by science, else you will find yourself in trouble. And sadly, many "unbeliever" people believe them and so they live their lives based on that. And even more sad, even some "believers" fall into this deception that they actually live the same way the "unbeliever" lives in this regard, more than by the way that they have learned from God.
If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.
And this they say is all done for what?
To the "unbeliever" scientists I say "Do not be deceived and rather seek God!"
To the "believer" scientists, I say "Be ever on your guard not to be swayed and not be deceived that you will some day know and explain where matter came from, and how it came to be, or where life came from, and how it came to be, for these are miracles of God. And if you find yourself living by science instead of living by faith in God, wake up and get back to the life of faith and get back to your first love!"
Spoken, most assuredly, as one who has not a clue of what science is and what it is all about. It is truly sad when one can read the Bible and not realize what he is reading. It is just as sad when one can look at the universe and not realize what he is looking at; such is the theological anti-science bigot.
When an "unbeliever", even a "believer" for that matter, is immersed in living in sin, what do we observe? We observe that, the more he don't realize that he is living in sin and finds himself getting farther and farther away from God.
It wasn't my intention to make that kind of accusation. While your beliefs about this issue are incorrect, it won't remove you from God unless you insist Christians have to believe as you do about it.
The same with an "unbeliever" scientist.
Too bad for them, then. However, all the "unbeliever" scientists I know, also say that science can't say whether or not the physical world is all there is.
If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.
Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion. However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word. The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.
This has nothing to do with your salvation. Don't let it lead you down the road away from Him, just because of the way evolution works.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 20, 2017 - 09:47:18
If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.
Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion. However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word. The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.
Perhaps it is not, but then again it may be for some "unbeliever" scientists. And here you somehow hold the idea of "origin of life", though perhaps in a different sense. A sense that somehow brings confusion to the believer. For "origin" pertains to the main source and to the giver or maker/creator. The works of scientists about evolution of life, of the world, or anything for that matter, in my understanding, in the sense of "origin" that you here make me understand, is then nothing more about theories of causes and effects, and not at all about the source and author of such.
But we Christians know the origin of life and who the author of life is, that is, God. However these scientists don't know that. For us who knows, I believe that all things have its source from God, as His words in scriptures says. The scriptures itself are to us the proof and the evidence to the truth of God and what He have done. When I received the gospel and had faith in Jesus Christ, it was because of an inner spiritual conviction that fell upon me, and nothing that was of the physical world. And I believe it is that for all who came to believe in Christ. So, having started with the Spirit, must the believer now go to the physical things and not to spiritual things for confirmation or for encouragement or for the strengthening of his faith in God? That would not be wise at all, isn't it?
Of the physical creation of God, this is what scriptures have in Romans 1:
20 For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
Paul wrote this at the time when science is yet perhaps at its very infancy, if at all man have known of science. And Paul so writes this in the context of his times and with reference to the past generations of men in general. So, we understand this scriptures as speaking of what men, without need of science, see in the created world around him, which Paul said the invisible attributes of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen.
Having said that, I understand the "unbeliever" or atheist scientists as probably one who failed to see, or perhaps have seen, yet does not simply accept and reject the idea of a Creator. And so he moves on with science with this thought, and so goes with all that he does. However, I wonder why the "believer" scientists now brings up the matter of evolution, which he says is limited to the physical, and tries to find its place in the spiritual things of God written in scriptures. That is obviously going beyond the boundaries of science that you say. That should not be I would say. And amazingly, it does not end there, as scientists go even to the extreme of attempting to find out, where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be. And to think, that scientists have come up with theories to this effect, to the extent that it implies the suggestion that there is no God, there is no Creator.
Tell me, being a scientist, why do scientists, through science put a lot of effort, time, and money, trying to: find out about things beyond earth, onto mars, and even to as far as they can to the outer world; find out where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be? What is the purpose of all of these? And as a professed Christian scientist, do you support and agree to all of these?
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 20, 2017 - 09:47:18
This has nothing to do with your salvation. Don't let it lead you down the road away from Him, just because of the way evolution works.
I agree, we Christians should not be led away by the knowledge of science nor any knowledge for that matter.
This matter may well be said as having nothing to do with our salvation, but if one take a good look at it, it has something to do with our living by faith, which should be in God. We must be influenced by the word of God and live according to it, and be careful not to be influenced by anything, such as science, not realizing that our living by faith in God is slowly stolen away from the child of God.
As young Christian students, we were perhaps taught in school about scientific theories such as that of evolution, the big bang, and others. And as the years went by, it became evident that new theories, if not a change, come up. And we are pretty sure that in the future, new theories will again come up. So, I find it wise to not so much get seriously into science as scientific knowledge is bound to change after all. But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And so, we should live with that.
Michael, see my reply #1095 above.
https://web.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data4.html
A SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION
PHYSICS. A scientific examination of the universe reveals no evolution whatsoever. An examination of the laws of physics reveals that evolution cannot exist. An examination of the energy laws reveals that only devolution, the exact opposite of evolution, exclusively exists. An examination of the biosphere reveals that only life begets life and only with less vitality. The individual complex organism has the least number and severity of genetic disorders at conception and the most the instant before death. The individual is the model of its population because a medical scientific examination of genetic disorders in a population reveals the same pattern. Furthermore, extinction is permanent for the individual and its population again confirming the exclusive rule of devolution.
THE NON VIABLE WORLD. A scientific examination of the non viable world reveals the same principles. Nothing evolves, everything devolves. Every object had to be created and it was at its structural and functional best when brand-new. It progressively devolved to extinction and eventually a pile of chemicals. The chemicals could never assemble themselves into the object. Any assembly had to be done by engineering, that is, by planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling. Once anything is created, it cannot change into something else. Though made of the same chemicals, a train cannot evolve to a ship. "That original organic soup" cannot evolve to the structural complexity of even one protein.
THE LIVING WORLD. In the world of living organisms, the biosphere, there is balance and interdependence beyond the intelligence of humans to fully understand. We do know that we cannot synthetically manufacture our air, water, soil, and foods and live for any extended period of time. Disruption of the biosphere definitely will cause our permanent extinction and possibly that of all life forms. If organisms could change to other life forms, then there would be chaos, no balance, and mass extinction. Organisms must be fixed for mutual survival and trillions of observations by billions of people over thousands of years attest that all life forms are indeed fixed. Nothing evolves into anything else. "Early bacteria" evolving to amoebas, a frog changing to a prince, the dead wood of a marionette changing to a boy are childish fantasies from ancient vitalism superstitions and fairy tales, not science.
FANTASIES. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the evolution story of evolving chemicals to people is not merely a fantasy, it is an inverted fantasy. It is not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tale because cows can jump a low fence. It is the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tale, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.
SUMMARY.In summary, evolution does not exist, never has and never will, because it is an inverted fantasy. Biology exclusively specifies fixed organisms in a balanced and
interdependent biosphere in which all life forms are at their best when brand-new and thereafter proceed to permanent extinction as individuals and populations. This suggests the creation of the biosphere as a complex, genetically perfect, global organism by means of the laws of engineering.
As ants cannot comprehend the civil engineering of New York City, so human intelligence
aggregated cannot comprehend the mega macro and nano biological engineering of the biosphere. To attach the origin and diversity of life to the universe's brainless phantom, evolution, is the ultimate intellectual insult. That the public schools and universities of the United States of America should be engaged in such a travesty, not only violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, but it degrades the realistic thinking ability of science students to below no science education whatsoever. Teaching the exact opposite of reality, like a photographic negative, promotes psychosis, not education.
For the scientific evidence for the above summary, see the book, The Rise and Fall of
Evolution, A Scientific Examination, and the peer reviewed and other articles.
Very nice for the United States of America, you do realize there are 194 more countries in this world right? The fact that secular scientists in China, Brazil, and the US come to the same scientific conclusion as evolutionary creationist scientists everywhere is very telling of the facts, and the truth.
: Amo Thu Nov 23, 2017 - 11:12:49"Early bacteria" evolving to amoebas, a frog changing to a prince, the dead wood of a marionette changing to a boy are childish fantasies from ancient vitalism superstitions and fairy tales, not science.
This is precisely the kind of abject stupidity with which you argue. It destroys your position. It is the worst kind of a strawman, namely a really stupid strawman. Why? Because it lays out clearly what you know and understand about the subject, namely, nothing -- as the Barbarian has pointed out so many times already.
: 4WD Thu Nov 23, 2017 - 12:48:12
This is precisely the kind of abject stupidity with which you argue. It destroys your position. It is the worst kind of a strawman, namely a really stupid strawman. Why? Because it lays out clearly what you know and understand about the subject, namely, nothing -- as the Barbarian has pointed out so many times already.
It is a simple illustration, demonstrating that the person who wrote it feels pretty much the same about you, as you just wrote about them above.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2228
More Problems for Alleged Human Evolution
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
Most of us remember seeing the drawings in science textbooks. The evolution of man depicted in its various "well-documented" stages, from ape-like ancestor to modern Homo sapiens. This "ape-like-ancestor-to-man," gradual progression entrenched in science textbooks for the past four-five decades, posted in museums of natural history and force-fed to several generations, is currently coming under heavy attack—and not just from creationists.
In 2000, renowned paleontologist Meave Leakey and her co-workers discovered two fossils in Kenya. The team reported on the fossil finds in the August issue of Nature magazine (448[7145]:688-691). The fossils Leakey found were of alleged human ancestors named Homo erectus and Homo habilis. It was supposed by many in the scientific community that Homo habilis was the human ancestor that evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into humans. Leakey, et al., reported, however, that the skull they found of Homo erectus was in walking distance to an upper jawbone of Homo habilis (Borenstein, 2007). Thus, the new find suggests to the scientific community that Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus, eliminating another key character from the evolution-of-man progressionary chart.
What reactions has this new find evoked? Borenstein wrote that it "pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution—that one species evolved from another" (2007). Fred Spoor, a co-author of the Nature article, said the new fossils paint a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us" (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007). Borenstein also interviewed Bill Kimbel, science director of the institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. Kimbel noted that the old idea of human evolution "is just too simple and keeps getting revised." He noted that the evolutionary scientific community "used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals" (2007).
It is obvious to the unbiased observer that something is dreadfully wrong with alleged human evolution. We are supposed to believe that humans evolved over millions of years from knuckle-walking, ape-like creatures into upright, intelligent, talking humans. When we ask for proof of this idea, we are told that the fossil record verifies the various stages of this evolution, and the evolutionary community is gracious enough to provide cartoon-like illustrations depicting the stages that are supposedly documented by the fossil evidence. Yet, when we begin to analyze the data behind the picture, we are told, "Oh, we're not sure that ape-like creature had anything to do with human evolution." Or we are told, "Right, well those two lived at the same time so the one could not have evolved into the other."
What, then, are we told to do with this ever-shifting, elusive human family tree that is continuously rearranged and redefined? We are simply told to trust that humans really did evolve and not worry over the "details" of how it happened. Susan Anton, another co-author of the Leakey report, said that she expects "anti-evolutionists" will use the new information to attack evolution, but she says that would be a mistake. "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous [sic] self-testing process" (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007).
Consider Anton's statement. We are told that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, given as evidence a series of alleged ancestors, then told that they are not really ancestors at all, but that we should still believe in human evolution. The truth of the matter is, humans did not evolve from lower mammals, and the "evidence" that is constantly being "refined" is so tenuous that a measly skull and jawbone can rewrite an entire family tree that evolutionary scientists have spent millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of work-hours, and half a century concocting. The material in the science textbooks of 50 years ago is useless and obsolete, yet at the time of its printing it was touted as irrefutable evidence for human evolution. The material in the textbook tomorrow will be in the same lamentable shape in another 40 years. Thus, we have a perpetual, vicious cycle in which the idea of human evolution is based on material that is constantly being refuted, but the most recent is said finally to be "it." When will the evolutionary community cast an honest look back at the sordid history of their beloved theory of human evolution and recognize the cyclic of dishonest in which they are trapped? As one critical writer noted: "These people do not know who begat whom, and they can't tell dates with any credibility; they keep losing links into gaps and moving things around, yet they expect us to believe they are the Masters of Enlightenment when telling us where we came from" ("Homo habilis Contemporary...," 2007).
Ms. Anton is right about one thing, however. Unlike modern science, true religion is not continuously "refined on specific points" to completely alter the truthfulness of previous statements. On the contrary, "the word of the Lord endures forever" (1 Peter 1:25).
: Amo Sat Nov 25, 2017 - 12:05:28It is a simple illustration, demonstrating that the person who wrote it feels pretty much the same about you, as you just wrote about them above.
No it is not a simple illustration. It is a mocking strawman. It is a stupid strawman. However, if it is a simple illustration of anything, it is the simple writer who wrote it.
Barbarian observes:
Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion. However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word. The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.
Perhaps it is not,
Definitely is not. Theories of the origin of life are called "abiogenesis." Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, merely speculating that God just created the first living things.
but then again it may be for some "unbeliever" scientists.
That would be like saying some mathematicians don't think addition is a valid operation.
And here you somehow hold the idea of "origin of life", though perhaps in a different sense.
Abiogenesis. Life from non-life, as God says in Genesis.
A sense that somehow brings confusion to the believer. For "origin" pertains to the main source and to the giver or maker/creator.
If you don't use words as they are commonly undestood, you not communicate very well. That's not what "origin" means.
But we Christians know the origin of life and who the author of life is, that is, God. However these scientists don't know that.
God created the world so that can understand how it works without knowing Him. I can only accept that it was the best way.
So, having started with the Spirit, must the believer now go to the physical things and not to spiritual things for confirmation or for encouragement or for the strengthening of his faith in God? That would not be wise at all, isn't it?
If your drain is blocked, would you want your plumber to look at physical things or spiritual things to fix it? Science is like plumbing.
Of the physical creation of God, this is what scriptures have in Romans 1:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
Paul wrote this at the time when science is yet perhaps at its very infancy, if at all man have known of science. And Paul so writes this in the context of his times and with reference to the past generations of men in general. So, we understand this scriptures as speaking of what men, without need of science, see in the created world around him, which Paul said the invisible attributes of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen.
Paul was well-educated, and Hellenistic science was better-developed than you might think. He was acknowledging that God's creation is a revelation in itself.
Having said that, I understand the "unbeliever" or atheist scientists as probably one who failed to see, or perhaps have seen, yet does not simply accept and reject the idea of a Creator. And so he moves on with science with this thought, and so goes with all that he does. However, I wonder why the "believer" scientists now brings up the matter of evolution, which he says is limited to the physical, and tries to find its place in the spiritual things of God written in scriptures. That is obviously going beyond the boundaries of science that you say.
Yes. Science can't consider the supernatural. But scientists can.
That should not be I would say. And amazingly, it does not end there, as scientists go even to the extreme of attempting to find out, where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be.
Perfectly reasonable objectives, since they are physical phenomena, and therefore open to science.
And to think, that scientists have come up with theories to this effect, to the extent that it implies the suggestion that there is no God, there is no Creator.
If your plumber can open your drain without considering the Creator, it does not mean there is no Creator.
Tell me, being a scientist, why do scientists, through science put a lot of effort, time, and money, trying to: find out about things beyond earth, onto mars, and even to as far as they can to the outer world; find out where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be? What is the purpose of all of these?
Occasionally, scientists will point out the many important discoveries that have led to progress in making our lives better, reducing suffering, and so on. But that's not really why we do it. The dirty little secret of science is that we do it because it's fun. We were created with an urge to go find out, and scientists spend their lives doing that. It happens to often result in useful things. But that's not why we do it.
And as a professed Christian scientist, do you support and agree to all of these?
Yep. I'm glad that what we do has so often made things better. But it really wouldn't matter as far as motivation is concerned. It's fun to explore His creation. And so we do.
I agree, we Christians should not be led away by the knowledge of science nor any knowledge for that matter.
This matter may well be said as having nothing to do with our salvation, but if one take a good look at it, it has something to do with our living by faith, which should be in God. We must be influenced by the word of God and live according to it, and be careful not to be influenced by anything, such as science, not realizing that our living by faith in God is slowly stolen away from the child of God.
That could be anything. I see many Christians of various political persuasions, abandoning their Christian principles to support ideas and candidates who are an affront to Christian belief. I have seen faith used to support racism, envy, and all sorts of evils. History is full of examples where leaders presented their evil ideas as Christian values. Men are weak, and often build idols that get in the way of their path to God. Science, like anything else, can become an idol.
But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And so, we should live with that.
Science is inductive. That is, we watch examples, and infer the rules from them. So all truth in science is provisional. On the other hand, God is eternal truth.
But we don't need eternal truths to get the plumbing working again. Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 28, 2017 - 07:45:31But we don't need eternal truths to get the plumbing working again.
Perhaps he uses an outside toilet and thinks that a flushing toilet inside a house is a bunch of foolishness not supported by the Scriptures. And for that all plumbers are probably unbelievers.
Most of us remember seeing the drawings in science textbooks. The evolution of man depicted in its various "well-documented" stages, from ape-like ancestor to modern Homo sapiens. This "ape-like-ancestor-to-man," gradual progression entrenched in science textbooks for the past four-five decades, posted in museums of natural history and force-fed to several generations, is currently coming under heavy attack—and not just from creationists.
I get to review textbooks from time to time. I've never seen one that had the "monkey to man" diagram, except as a warning about foolish misconceptions about evolution. Can you give us an example of a modern textbook that uses that as an illustration of evolution? I can't find one, and no one seems to be able to show me one.
In 2000, renowned paleontologist Meave Leakey and her co-workers discovered two fossils in Kenya. The team reported on the fossil finds in the August issue of Nature magazine (448[7145]:688-691). The fossils Leakey found were of alleged human ancestors named Homo erectus and Homo habilis. It was supposed by many in the scientific community that Homo habilis was the human ancestor that evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into humans. Leakey, et al., reported, however, that the skull they found of Homo erectus was in walking distance to an upper jawbone of Homo habilis (Borenstein, 2007). Thus, the new find suggests to the scientific community that Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus, eliminating another key character from the evolution-of-man progressionary chart.
This is like saying that if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead. Many times, a new species evolves, and the old one lives on. Would you like to see some examples?
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 28, 2017 - 08:20:58
I get to review textbooks from time to time. I've never seen one that had the "monkey to man" diagram, except as a warning about foolish misconceptions about evolution. Can you give us an example of a modern textbook that uses that as an illustration of evolution? I can't find one, and no one seems to be able to show me one.
Not modern, but if you can obtain a textbook in the 4th grade use around 1955/1956 you might.
That was when I was in 4th grade and very definitely had the monkey to modern man evolution picture, heading the chapter about evolution.
We never studied it in depth, but did have to read it.
I do remember wondering how that fitted with God creating Adam as a man , then Eve.
Now recently, in checking my DNA through 23 and me, I am told I have more Neanderthal varients then 91% of 23 and me customers.
In addition they say that I am 47% more likely to have red body or facial hair. And I am a true Ginger.
Most recently I read ....Genetic studies have shown that a protein–coupled receptor called MC1R holds the key for this mutation. A few alleles (Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, Asp294His, and Arg142His) are recessive for the red hair phenotype.
Similar studies have shown that some Neanderthals were redheads too, but this doesn't mean that redheads have Neanderthal ancestors — scientists believe the mutation emerged differently than in humans.
(from: https://www.zmescience.com/science/redheads-feel-more-pain-20092017/)
So........ for me, at least.... it would appear that my DNA dates back to Neanderthals.
And where exactly does this leave me in the line up from Adam.....?
Not modern, but if you can obtain a textbook in the 4th grade use around 1955/1956 you might.
That was when I was in 4th grade and very definitely had the monkey to modern man evolution picture, heading the chapter about evolution.
So far, no one can show me one. And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade? That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade. I don't think it was a textbook.
Now recently, in checking my DNA through 23 and me, I am told I have more Neanderthal varients then 91% of 23 and me customers.
In addition they say that I am 47% more likely to have red body or facial hair. And I am a true Ginger.
Most recently I read ....Genetic studies have shown that a protein–coupled receptor called MC1R holds the key for this mutation. A few alleles (Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, Asp294His, and Arg142His) are recessive for the red hair phenotype. Similar studies have shown that some Neanderthals were redheads too, but this doesn't mean that redheads have Neanderthal ancestors — scientists believe the mutation emerged differently than in humans.
The conclusion is still a bit controversial, but it appears that northern Europeans do have a considerable amount of Neandertal DNA, and that gene is part of our inheritance. My family has it, and we tend to be Neandertal-shaped, and stronger than most people. Big noses, large heads, heavy, muscular frames; my daughter asked me about it when she was 10, after reading about Neandertals. I had freckles and red hair as a child.
And where exactly does this leave me in the line up from Adam.....?
Humans and Neandertals are subspecies of H. sapiens, so Adam came somewhat before. I don't see why it would matter to God if Adam was archaic H. sapiens, or H. erectus.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 28, 2017 - 20:59:32
So far, no one can show me one. And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade? That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade. I don't think it was a textbook.
The conclusion is still a bit controversial, but it appears that northern Europeans do have a considerable amount of Neandertal DNA, and that gene is part of our inheritance. My family has it, and we tend to be Neandertal-shaped, and stronger than most people. Big noses, large heads, heavy, muscular frames; my daughter asked me about it when she was 10, after reading about Neandertals. I had freckles and red hair as a child.
Humans and Neandertals are subspecies of H. sapiens, so Adam came somewhat before. I don't see why it would matter to God if Adam was archaic H. sapiens, or H. erectus.
So this is what Adam looked like?
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Homo-Erectus.jpg)
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 28, 2017 - 20:59:32
So far, no one can show me one. And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade? That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade. I don't think it was a textbook.
Yes it was.
5th Ward School on East Maiden Street, (US route 40) Washington PA 15301
Though that school is no longer there.
What I do not remember, from near 6 decades ago is what the class was.... had to be history? (Social studies????) or maybe an intro into science?????????
As I said, was not really taught but we were expected to read.
At no other time in any year did I see mention of it... but the pictures showed in the book, which were above the chapter title and shown only once..... are very much like those drawings if you google evolution .
I did try to see if I could find that online... the textbook... but could not.
The original cover of "Origin of Species" has been modified many times over the years.
(https://aaronkim.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/originofspecies_cover.jpg)
Somehow we've ended up with this.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qzz%2BXROwL.jpg)
We certainly studied Darwinian theories in HS, but I don't recall if we used the text book, or subsequent editions as reference.
On a side note, The Origin of Species was voted the most influential academic book ever written, it was hailed as "why academic books truly matter" and "a book that has changed the way we think about everything."
: Alan Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 07:23:09
The original cover of "Origin of Species" has been modified many times over the years.
(https://aaronkim.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/originofspecies_cover.jpg)
Somehow we've ended up with this.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qzz%2BXROwL.jpg)
We certainly studied Darwinian theories in HS, but I don't recall if we used the text book, or subsequent editions as reference.
On a side note, The Origin of Species was voted the most influential academic book ever written, it was hailed as "why academic books truly matter" and "a book that has changed the way we think about everything."
Ah, I recognize some relatives rofl
And this looks a lot like what I remember from my text book.
: AVZ Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 00:13:29
So this is what Adam looked like?
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Homo-Erectus.jpg)
Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.
: Ginger Rella Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 10:56:38
Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.
No wonder Adam accepted the fruit from Eve...he doesn't look very bright.
He still has that look on his face "Ok, what just happened to me?!?"
Also, a very cheesy mustache, I never trust guys with pseudo-staches.
: Alan Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 12:35:55
Also, a very cheesy mustache, I never trust guys with pseudo-staches.
Or "any" facial hair. ::whistle::
Darwin, if he saw the cover of that book, would have had a fit.
It's not the way evolution works, and his discoveries pretty much put an end to orthogenesis as a scientific theory. I can understand it being in a history textbook; I once read a history textbook that said that people told Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the Earth if he sailed too far west.
There's a lot of errors like that in history textbooks.
So this is what Adam looked like?
Who knows exactly which human was first given a living soul? Do you think H. erectus was not good enough to be the first of our kind?
Why would God care?
Classic H. erectus (the one associated with fire and extensive tool use) probably looked more like this:
(http://www.gurche.com/webgraphics/homo_erectus_JHerectus_threeQ_fs.jpg)
: Ginger Rella Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 13:12:19
Or "any" facial hair. ::whistle::
How about eyebrows?
: The Barbarian Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 16:56:40
Who knows exactly which human was first given a living soul? Do you think H. erectus was not good enough to be the first of our kind?
Why would God care?
Classic H. erectus (the one associated with fire and extensive tool use) probably looked more like this:
(http://www.gurche.com/webgraphics/homo_erectus_JHerectus_threeQ_fs.jpg)
So you are saying that Adam was not the first human?
: AVZ Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 17:28:58
How about eyebrows?
I actually know a man who has zero hair anywhere on his body. He worked in the auto industry repairing and repainting cars and some chemical he was allergic to had him developed a condition that caused all hair to be lost permanently, including eyebrows.
He was every bit as attractive without as with. I actually think more.
So... lack of brows, for me, is alright. Far more preferable then bushy wild looking ones. ::nodding::
So you are saying that Adam was not the first human?
Depends on what you mean by "human." Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade. I do not think Adam was from that particular species, although it is possible. If you mean "descendants of Adam", it is more likely it's one of the more recent populations of Homo. Homo erectus, especially, the later populations, was very, very much like our own species.
It's fun to speculate, but of course, it has nothing whatever to do with salvation. And we really don't have a way of knowing for sure.
: Ginger Rella Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 17:44:19
I actually know a man who has zero hair anywhere on his body. He worked in the auto industry repairing and repainting cars and some chemical he was allergic to had him developed a condition that caused all hair to be lost permanently, including eyebrows.
He was every bit as attractive without as with. I actually think more.
So... lack of brows, for me, is alright. Far more preferable then bushy wild looking ones. ::nodding::
Men, if you see a woman with eyebrows that painted on, tattooed on, or drawn on with makeup run away at light speed.
It is no wonder I do not need a tattoo!
: The Barbarian Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 19:51:41
Depends on what you mean by "human." Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.
Ahh, WHOSE classification is that? Gods? Mans?
: The Barbarian Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 19:51:41
Depends on what you mean by "human." Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade. I do not think Adam was from that particular species, although it is possible. If you mean "descendants of Adam", it is more likely it's one of the more recent populations of Homo. Homo erectus, especially, the later populations, was very, very much like our own species.
It's fun to speculate, but of course, it has nothing whatever to do with salvation. And we really don't have a way of knowing for sure.
Of course it is important.
If Homo Habilis was the first human, and Adam was the first human...then Adam must have been a Homo Habilis.
(http://howhumanshaveevolved.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/4/2/21423148/6395702.jpg)
But then again, according to science (and according to you) it was Homo Erectus who is associated with fire.
We read in scripture that Cain and Abel built an altar for the Lord, so they must have known fire.
In that case Adam must have been a Homo Erectus, and hence he could not have been the first human on earth.
So, you call all this speculative...but which part do you is speculating?
Is science speculating or is scripture?
You have been promoting science in this thread as "proof" of things, and you have declared scripture as "figurative".
So are you now changing your tune and call your proof "speculative"?
Science claims that Homo Habilis appeared on stage 2.3 Million years ago. So if Adam was the first human, then he existed 2.3 million years ago.
Science claims that Homo Erectus appeared on stage 1.8 Million years ago. Cain and Abel must have been Homo Erectus because they knew fire.
So according to you, Adam was at least 500,000 years old...no wonder he looks so bad in all the pictures.
Scripturally, the difference between mankind and all other animals is the spirit given him by God. Since the spirit is scientifically undetectable, there is no way for science to distinguish biblical man from any other animal. Therefore the scientific designation of human being and the biblical designation are not necessarily the same. The scientific human being [homo sapiens]may well have existed long before God decided it was time to introduce the spirit into the individual we now know as the biblical human being.
: Ginger Rella Wed Nov 29, 2017 - 10:56:38
Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.
Really, Rella?
How do you know that's not a picture of Eve? Looks like a bra strap on her shoulder.
Bottom line, should we interpret God's words according to science?
Of course it is important.
It's completely irrelevant to one's salvation. Why would it matter when two humans got immortal souls from God?
If Homo Habilis was the first human, and Adam was the first human...
He's merely the ancestor of all humans living today. Doesn't say he was the first human.
But then again, according to science (and according to you) it was Homo Erectus who is associated with fire.
And more sophisticated tools. Hominins were making tools before the genus Homo appeared, but H. erectus (second word is not capitalized) was more humanlike in that respect.
Homo erectus was the first to use fire and sophisticated tools. Unlike earlier hominids that developed crude choppers and flakes, Homo erectus produced sophisticated stone axes and used sharp stone cleavers and finger-size scrapers used slice off chewable sizes of meat. "Tools gave them access to elephants, wildebeest---bonanzas so big they couldn't eat it all," Nick Toth, an archaeologist from Indiana University told National Geographic.
Homo erectus made the first wooden spears and first wooden bowls. Using stone anvils and point pressure tools, Homo erectus was able to fashion large tool heads and fine long blades, sharpened on both sides. They made hunting tools with spear points for throwing and thrusting and ax heads for chopping and dismembering carcasses. Perhaps they used cooperative skills in hunting to drive rhinos, elephants or mammoths over cliffs or into swamps.
Blades dated to 240,000 year ago made from long slivers of stones in the Rift Valley are so skillfully crafted from difficult-to-work obsidian and lava, that some anthropologists argue that they required abstract thought to make.
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub360/entry-2754.html
We read in scripture that Cain and Abel built an altar for the Lord, so they must have known fire.
In that case Adam must have been a Homo Erectus, and hence he could not have been the first human on earth.
The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. So it's speculative. And if you focus on this, you lose the message of Genesis.
So, you call all this speculative...but which part do you is speculating?
People extending what we have, to imagine what might be.
Is science speculating or is scripture?
Neither. People are speculating.
You have been promoting science in this thread as "proof" of things,
No. If you take nothing else away from this, realize that science is not about logical certainty. We merely accumulate evidence to the point that it's foolish to deny what the evidence indicates. There are inductive proofs, but not in science.
and you have declared scripture as "figurative".
Much of it is, yes. Unless you think mountains can talk, or that the Earth is flat and covered with a dome-shaped sky with windows in it from which rain falls.
So are you now changing your tune and call your proof "speculative"?
You've just imagined things I haven't said.
Bottom line, should we interpret God's words according to science?
A wise man, who loved God once said "truth cannot contradict truth." So there is no conflict.
However, as Galileo remarked, science tells you how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven. Different things with different purposes.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 30, 2017 - 13:56:18
It's completely irrelevant to one's salvation. Why would it matter when two humans got immortal souls from God?
There are tons of people who corrupt scripture. And they all think it is irrelevant to their salvation.
There are tons of people who corrupt scripture.
YE Creationist don't "corrupt" scripture. They merely interpret it in a new way. Since the Bible doesn't support or deny evolution, it's not a salvation issue.
And they all think it is irrelevant to their salvation.
It is irrelevant to their salvation, unless they make an idol of their opinion. Same goes for those who accept evolution.
Barbarian observes:
Depends on what you mean by "human." Scientifically, H. habilis is "human", since that species is a member of the genus Homo, the human clade.
Ahh, WHOSE classification is that?
Scientifically, "human" refers to any species of the genus Homo. We happen to be the only surviving species.
If by "human", you mean those two members of the genus who were given an immortal soul by God, then it would be whatever species they happened to be, along with their descendants. We have no way of saying with any certainty, what species.
Gods? Mans?
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 30, 2017 - 19:17:51
YE Creationist don't "corrupt" scripture. They merely interpret it in a new way. Since the Bible doesn't support or deny evolution, it's not a salvation issue.
It is irrelevant to their salvation, unless they make an idol of their opinion. Same goes for those who accept evolution.
The Bible most certainly and explicitly denies evolution.
You just swing in such a way that you can pretend it doesn't. Man most certainly did not come from apes, and Eve was created from Adam's rib.
It is very convenient for you to declare your theory as irrelevant to salvation, but I am not that sure you are right.
If indeed the evolution theory as you promote it, turns out to be a deception, and as a Christian you should have known and yet you followed the deception...I am not convinced at all you will be let off the hook.
Furthermore, if you have promoted this deception and due to your advocacy you have participated in someone rejecting God as the Creator, you are very likely to be held accountable.
I think you are on very thin ice.
Scientific "proof" and Darwin's evolution theory are the number one reason why people reject God.
The funny thing about it all is that you KNOW scientific proof fails when it comes to scripture.
I have in my hand scientific proof that the resurrection is an impossibility! Yet I have decided that science is wrong on that matter, and the Bible tells the truth.
By that same token, and the same logic, I have also decided that science is wrong about evolution, and the Bible tells the truth.
I have decided that if the Bible is God's Word...it MUST be truth!
You on the other hand have decided that science is wrong about the resurrection.
But for some reason that defies logic, that same science is the truth when it comes to evolution.
You have decided that Gods Word is subject to man's knowledge.
And I think that is exactly what the Bible says when it speaks about those who are vain in their own wisdom and declare the truth to be a lie.
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 05:21:54I have in my hand scientific proof that the resurrection is an impossibility!
No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof". The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15). Science addresses only the physical.
The funny thing about it all is that you KNOW scientific proof fails when it comes to scripture.
And that is wrong as well, or perhaps I have not understood what you intend. Science is the study of the physical universe, God's physical creation. Some people, scientists or otherwise, may interpret either the scientific data or the scriptural data wrongly, but that does not mean that science or scientific proof fails; and given the variances of interpretations given by theologians in so much of scripture, I think that the theologians and theology are probably as much or more at odds with scripture than are scientists and science.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 05:45:22
No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof". The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15). Science addresses only the physical.
And that is exactly the crux of the matter.
Science CANNOT address the unnatural. Creation in all is facets is unnatural, and it cannot be addressed by science.
Yet man attempts to explain away the miracle of creation by invoking natural improbabilities and implausibilities.
And for that they use a theory that falls short by any means whatsoever.
As Christians this really should be an absolute nobrainer for us.
In scripture God tells us EXACTLY how he achieved salvation for mankind, and what acts and miracles He performed to achieve His goal.
In Genesis God does EXACTLY the same and He tells us how He made this universe, how long it took Him and what acts and miracles He performed to achieve His goal.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Christian to doubt anything that is written down in the Bible.
As I said, if you accept scripture as Gods Word...you MUST accept that it is truth.
Unfortunately there are lots of Christians who take sides with the opposition, and happily declare that scripture is does not say what it says and it should be taken figuratively.
As far as I am concerned that is the biggest mistake a Christian can make.
If you cannot trust God to hand us a creation event that we can blindly trust for its truth and value, how can we ever trust God blindly for anything else that is written down in that same scripture?
I have said it before, those who doubt or reject the first chapters of scripture...find themselves in a position where they have no choice but to doubt and reject many other parts of scripture.
Both you and Barbarian are typical examples of that.
You deny that physical death came as a result of Adam's sin, and you find yourself in a theological conundrum with the original sin question in the New Testament.
Barbarian bluntly rejects a physical creation of Adam as a man. He prefers to have him come from a lineage of apes. Eve was of course not made from Adam's rib as well.
He finds himself at odds with a whole bunch of issues and has arrived at the point that salvation is about "being good to your neighbor" and even Muslims are welcome in heaven.
So yes, it is very important and an issue of salvation to believe God on His Word.
Once you take out the whitewash because some bunch of scientists whisper in your ear they know better than God, you are on a path that will lead you away from the truth.
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 07:54:45And that is exactly the crux of the matter.
Science CANNOT address the unnatural. Creation in all is facets is unnatural, and it cannot be addressed by science.
The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation". Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation. He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child. That is the fallacy of so much of Young Earth Creationism. When the Bible records that God said, "let there be light", and there was light (Gen 1:3), you will insist that means God created light. But the Bible doesn't say what you insist it says. The Bible doesn't say God created light. You say that, not the Bible. And you are wrong.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Christian to doubt anything that is written down in the Bible.
That is absolutely true. But there are lots of reasons for a Christian to doubt what you, or any others, say is written down in the Bible. The example above demonstrates that clearly.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 05:45:22
No, you do not. There is no such "scientific proof". The resurrection is a spiritual event (see 1 Corinthians 15). Science addresses only the physical.
Science is the study of the physical universe, God's physical creation.
That's clear enough. Science addresses only the physical, not anything spiritual. The difference is so obvious. Now, is not God's words in scriptures, spiritual?
So, there is the obvious reason that science does not and cannot address God's words in scriptures. What then is the matter of trying to bring the things of science to the things of scriptures? What work is that? Whose work is that?
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:13:10
The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation". Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation. He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child. That is the fallacy of so much of Young Earth Creationism. When the Bible records that God said, "let there be light", and there was light (Gen 1:3), you will insist that means God created light. But the Bible doesn't say what you insist it says. The Bible doesn't say God created light. You say that, not the Bible. And you are wrong.That is absolutely true. But there are lots of reasons for a Christian to doubt what you, or any others, say is written down in the Bible. The example above demonstrates that clearly.
Michael is absolutely correct. Psalm 139 states:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."So here too the simple principle applies. It is in Gods Word that this is what He does. Now you can argue with that until you see blue in the face, but the real question is: if God does not create babies individually, why would He put it in the Bible that He does?
Of course your argument with the creation of light is just another hollow claim.
You tell me, if God did not create light...who did?
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 05:21:54
Furthermore, if you have promoted this deception and due to your advocacy you have participated in someone rejecting God as the Creator, you are very likely to be held accountable.
I think you are on very thin ice.
This comment holds true for both sides of the debate. In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution. IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God?
Light is a physical attribute of our relevance to our sun, it is indeed God's creation but it doesn't need to recreated as a spiritual creation that doesn't require the natural elements that God Himself has put in place.
If God created light outside of the physical and natural elements known to us, can we then expect that in some other state, light can and will exist without the sun? This is one of those topics that is far too obvious, yet some people attempt to add their own complexity to support their views of scripture.
: Carey Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:57:51
This comment holds true for both sides of the debate. In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution. IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God?
+1 Carey
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:13:10
The real crux of the matter is what some, you included, consider to be "creation". Michael2012, for example, considers the birth of every man an act of creation. He doesn't distinguish between God's creating a process, such as the combining of the sperm and the egg to produce a child, and God's creating a child.
That is saying that God created not man but the process that created the man. But God said He created man, and that, in His image. Who should the readers of this thread believe, your words or God's words?
So when you read that God created man, He wasn't referring to mankind as a whole?
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:45:53Of course your argument with the creation of light is just another hollow claim.
You tell me, if God did not create light...who did?
No one created light. God created the process whereby light emerged.
Michael is absolutely correct. Psalm 139 states:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
That is a very poor translation. Look at some others.
: Alan Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:10:53
So when you read that God created man, He wasn't referring to mankind as a whole?
What do you mean?
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:12:03
No one created light. God created the process whereby light emerged.
What process? What did God create before the process so that there could be light?
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:15:46What process? What did God create before the process so that there could be light?
The physical universe through the big bang and the physical laws of nature.
: Carey Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:57:51
This comment holds true for both sides of the debate. In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution. IMO that is less the result of Christians like Barbarian, who see evolution as compatible with God's word, and more so those that insist it is incompatible.
Who is truly putting the stumbling block in the path to God?
+1
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:17:46
The physical universe through the big bang and the physical laws of nature.
Big Bang?
Tell us what do you say God created in the beginning before this so called big bang process?
No one created light. God created the process whereby light emerged.
Yea, He said let there be light, and there was light. Given enough time though, you'll tell us how it really happened, won't you? Your among the new order of prophets aren't you? The scientists, the new prophets of God who correctly explain the word of God which could not be explained by the inferior prophets before them. They tried, but they just didn't have it in them.
: Amo Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 10:01:47
Yea, He said let there be light, and there was light. Given enough time though, you'll tell us how it really happened, won't you? Your among the new order of prophets aren't you? The scientists, the new prophets of God who correctly explain the word of God which could not be explained by the inferior prophets before them. They tried, but they just didn't have it in them.
No not really. But I am really curious here. Suppose, just suppose, that in fact God created the universe using the big bang and His laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc much like is being presented in the sciences; how do you suppose He would declare that to the Hebrew to whom and for whom the creation account was written. Science, for example, sometimes describes the very earliest of time, first seconds and earlier right after the big bang, as a primordial "soup" of fundamental particles. How would God have described that to the Hebrew 4000 years ago? I can imagine that He might call that "water", there being no Hebrew for "primordial soup of fundamental particles". Much as God said the "sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again", when we know that the rising and setting sun is really the earth rotating on its axis and has nothing to do with any movement by the sun.
But who knows, perhaps you hold to the literal words in the Bible that says the earth is unmoved and the sun rises in the east, travels across the sky, sets in the west and then returns (unseen) again to the east to begin the process all over again. And I could believe that you just might.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:26:14
Big Bang?
Tell us what do you say God created in the beginning before this so called big bang process?
Uh, angels? But in fact what difference does it make if He did or didn't create anything before the big bang? In point of fact, since time is a physical creation of this physical universe, more likely than not, there really was no "before" God created this world. So far as we know, time is a measure appropriate only to the physical creation.
The Bible most certainly and explicitly denies evolution.
Of course it doesn't. Doesn't say one way or the other. Genesis does explicitly reject the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, but that doesn't matter at all to your salvation.
If indeed your new doctrine of YE creationism as you promote it, turns out to be a deception, and as a Christian you should have known and yet you followed the deception...it won't matter. God doesn't use that to separate the sheep from the goats.
The real damage YE creationism does, is to turn away those who might otherwise come to him, when they are told that YE creationism is part of Christian belief because they know that YE creationism is false. When this happens due to your advocacy you have participated in someone rejecting God as the Creator. However, if you didn't intend that (and I have seen it happen again and again) you may have a way out.
But do you really want this to happen?
I have in my hand scientific proof that the resurrection is an impossibility!
Show us that. Never heard a scientist say it. Science can't rule out miracles. You on the other hand have decided that science is wrong about the resurrection. You have decided that Gods Word is subject to man's knowledge. Even though you've been shown that science does not deny miracles, you continue to say otherwise.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 10:49:51
Big Bang?
Tell us what do you say God created in the beginning before this so called big bang process?
Uh, angels? But in fact what difference does it make if He did or didn't create anything before the big bang? In point of fact, since time is a physical creation of this physical universe, more likely than not, there really was no "before" God created this world. So far as we know, time is a measure appropriate only to the physical creation.
Angels? What does that have to do with what God created that went big bang! Somehow God must have created something that went through the big bang process.
At least you believe that God created the angels.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 11:20:45
Uh, angels? But in fact what difference does it make if He did or didn't create anything before the big bang? In point of fact, since time is a physical creation of this physical universe, more likely than not, there really was no "before" God created this world. So far as we know, time is a measure appropriate only to the physical creation.[/size]Angels? What does that have to do with what God created that went big bang! Somehow God must have created something that went through the big bang process.
At least you believe that God created the angels.
God created the big bang. If you had bothered to read even the most basic aspects of the big bang, you would know that "bang" is simply a tag applied to the event. It was assigned as mockery by an early antagonist to the concept; he eventually came to believe in the reality of it.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 12:00:25
Angels? What does that have to do with what God created that went big bang! Somehow God must have created something that went through the big bang process.
At least you believe that God created the angels.
God created the big bang. If you had bothered to read even the most basic aspects of the big bang, you would know that "bang" is simply a tag applied to the event. It was assigned as mockery by an early antagonist to the concept; he eventually came to believe in the reality of it.
So, you believe that God created the big bang? Or is it man who made up the big bang as his way of trying to explain how everything begun? An impossible human quest for something that only one like God can know. And the proud man say that based on man's scientific work and human wisdom.
Did God in scriptures say that? But in the scientific scriptures, man, in his own wisdom do say that.
We have the Holy scriptures of God say " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
God created the big bang. If you had bothered to read even the most basic aspects of the big bang, you would know that "bang" is simply a tag applied to the event. It was assigned as mockery by an early antagonist to the concept; he eventually came to believe in the reality of it.
Ironically, atheists initially assailed the Big Bang theory (which was proposed by a physicist who happened to be a Catholic priest) because it implied creation instead of a never-created universe.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 10:45:36
No not really. But I am really curious here. Suppose, just suppose, that in fact God created the universe using the big bang and His laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc much like is being presented in the sciences; how do you suppose He would declare that to the Hebrew to whom and for whom the creation account was written. Science, for example, sometimes describes the very earliest of time, first seconds and earlier right after the big bang, as a primordial "soup" of fundamental particles. How would God have described that to the Hebrew 4000 years ago? I can imagine that He might call that "water", there being no Hebrew for "primordial soup of fundamental particles". Much as God said the "sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again", when we know that the rising and setting sun is really the earth rotating on its axis and has nothing to do with any movement by the sun.
But who knows, perhaps you hold to the literal words in the Bible that says the earth is unmoved and the sun rises in the east, travels across the sky, sets in the west and then returns (unseen) again to the east to begin the process all over again. And I could believe that you just might.
*snicker ::crackup::
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 09:26:14
Big Bang?
Tell us what do you say God created in the beginning before this so called big bang process?
That would be God's little secret wouldn't it?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause....
: Carey Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 08:57:51
In my experience some do reject God as creator based on believing in evolution.
You can't possibly and logically defend that claim.
Everybody who rejects God believes in evolution and it is rather a very tiny little group of those who believe in evolution accept God as a creator at the same time.
If you ask an atheist why he does not believe in God, in 99.9% of the cases he will immediately refer to evolution.
What you say is pertinently incorrect. Most atheists defend their atheism by appealing to science.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 10:45:36
No not really. But I am really curious here. Suppose, just suppose, that in fact God created the universe using the big bang and His laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc much like is being presented in the sciences; how do you suppose He would declare that to the Hebrew to whom and for whom the creation account was written. Science, for example, sometimes describes the very earliest of time, first seconds and earlier right after the big bang, as a primordial "soup" of fundamental particles. How would God have described that to the Hebrew 4000 years ago? I can imagine that He might call that "water", there being no Hebrew for "primordial soup of fundamental particles". Much as God said the "sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again", when we know that the rising and setting sun is really the earth rotating on its axis and has nothing to do with any movement by the sun.
But who knows, perhaps you hold to the literal words in the Bible that says the earth is unmoved and the sun rises in the east, travels across the sky, sets in the west and then returns (unseen) again to the east to begin the process all over again. And I could believe that you just might.
The Hebrews had absolutely no problem understanding the account in Genesis and neither did the generations after them.
The only time "problems" arose was when science started to complicate things.
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 12:45:40
You can't possibly and logically defend that claim.
Everybody who rejects God believes in evolution and it is rather a very tiny little group of those who believe in evolution accept God as a creator at the same time.
If you ask an atheist why he does not believe in God, in 99.9% of the cases he will immediately refer to evolution.
What you say is pertinently incorrect. Most atheists defend their atheism by appealing to evolution.
Wow, logic 101.
Talk to many atheists that have been told by zealots that any scientific discoveries and theories are the works of satan and there you'll have one of the biggest reasons why people reject God.
4WD, I disagree that young earth creationist turn people away from God because of that belief. If someone is averse to miracles as opposed to hard science, why would they believe in notions like the virgin birth or an actual resurrection from the dead regardless of being potentially repelled by a young earth interpretation of Genesis vs what science has concluded. If science was totally relied upon, who would "fall for" the rest of scripture.
The gospel requires a whole lot more "acceptance" of the incredible than a young earth creation.
: Alan Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 12:50:50
Wow, logic 101.
Talk to many atheists that have been told by zealots that any scientific discoveries and theories are the works of satan and there you'll have one of the biggest reasons why people reject God.
That is completely irrelevant. What I am saying is an objective and correct observation.
If I put you in a room with 100 atheists and you only ask one question: "Why are you an atheist"...the discussion will immediately go to evolution and scientific proof.
The truth is that there are very few zealots who declare scientific discoveries the work of Satan, but there are many atheists who happily proclaim science and evolution their liberator from religion.
It is very simple: Everything that leads man away from God, comes from Satan.
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 13:06:14
That is completely irrelevant. What I am saying is an objective and correct observation.
If I put you in a room with 100 atheists and you only ask one question: "Why are you an atheist"...the discussion will immediately go to evolution and scientific proof.
The truth is that there are very few zealots who declare scientific discoveries the work of Satan, but there are many atheists who happily proclaim science and evolution their liberator from religion.
It is very simple: Everything that leads man away from God, comes from Satan.
For the atheist that can't get past the genuine discoveries that have been made in the name of science, what do you say to him/her? Do you continue on the path that it's all a lie? I don't believe the things of science are a lie, nor could I justly tell someone that has devoted their life to discovery is deluded. The only explanation left is that God has purposely placed these deceptions on our earth to weed out the tares, but I don't believe that either.
: AVZ Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 12:45:40Everybody who rejects God believes in evolution and it is rather a very tiny little group of those who believe in evolution accept God as a creator at the same time.
Actually I would be willing to bet that there are far more Christians who accept some form of evolution than those who reject it. The YECs actually are the rather tiny little group and represent a very small percentage of Christians.
: Jaime Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 13:00:344WD, I disagree that young earth creationist turn people away from God because of that belief. If someone is averse to miracles as opposed to hard science, why would they believe in notions like the virgin birth or an actual resurrection from the dead regardless of being potentially repelled by a young earth interpretation of Genesis vs what science has concluded. If science was totally relied upon, who would "fall for" the rest of scripture.
The gospel requires a whole lot more "acceptance" of the incredible than a young earth creation.
I think that was Alan who mentioned that, not me. However, I would not disagree with him. I find too many who make believing in the YEC interpretation of creation a truly sad "test of fellowship".
I accept that things evolve as a YE creationist, just NOT in the macro sense. I do not believe that creation necessarily happened 6000 yrs ago, but i equally do not believe that it happened Billions of years ago and macro evolution ensued. I think it takes FAR more faith to believe In the Big Bang and macro evolution as not. I think being an atheist would take the greatest amount of faith of all. Though none of them would admit it. A Christian Big Banger is kind of a hybrid, one that confounds me. There are many things in the Bible that would cause an atheist or simply a scientist to scratch his head other than the creation story. The creation does not have to conform to scientific norms anymore than the virgin birth has to.
Similar to global warming. I concede that the earth is warming, but just am not ready to buy that man is the major cause of it. To most gullible warming advocates, that would make me an idiot. I see the opposite view as idiotic.
I agree 4WD, it along with MANY other things should not be used as a litmus test. And I have seen some of those things, not the most ridiculous being musical instruments in worship. Many many more. I have seen people denied communion because they were not baptized in a particular congregation. A communion of all things!
Of course most atheist take total offense to the notion that Jesus is God, and the savior of mankind. The stories of creation, Noah, the Red Sea etc are far more unacceptible than a non big bang creation void of macro evolution.
Most atheists have been indoctrinated to be anti Christian for many reasons not just in being "pro science".
Atheism like global warmingism is a religious idealogy in my opinion. I can accept the Big Bangers as fellow Christians, though I don't agree with them. I was deeply steeped in all that in college as a geology major and ultimately an engineering major. The Big Bang was NOT put forth as anything but the real story against the "God did it" whatever way.
That would be God's little secret wouldn't it?
C.S. Lewis described the witch in
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe , saying she knew the magic at the beginning, but did not know the deep magic before the beginning.
Science is like that. We have no way of knowing scientifically what there was before the creation, because science is limited to nature.
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 10:45:36
No not really. But I am really curious here. Suppose, just suppose, that in fact God created the universe using the big bang and His laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc much like is being presented in the sciences; how do you suppose He would declare that to the Hebrew to whom and for whom the creation account was written. Science, for example, sometimes describes the very earliest of time, first seconds and earlier right after the big bang, as a primordial "soup" of fundamental particles. How would God have described that to the Hebrew 4000 years ago? I can imagine that He might call that "water", there being no Hebrew for "primordial soup of fundamental particles". Much as God said the "sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again", when we know that the rising and setting sun is really the earth rotating on its axis and has nothing to do with any movement by the sun.
But who knows, perhaps you hold to the literal words in the Bible that says the earth is unmoved and the sun rises in the east, travels across the sky, sets in the west and then returns (unseen) again to the east to begin the process all over again. And I could believe that you just might.
Right, like I said, God uses you now as the new prophets because in your own mind in any case you are much smarter, simply more intelligent, and of course more evolved than those old simple minded more monkey like prophets God chose from the past. Now that we have evolved enough we can comprehend something like the theory of evolution, which would have been way over the heads of our more monkey like ancestors, thus the creation story for those who had just received a spirit and were still trying to get over being monkey like. Get a grip and get over yourself, if evolution were true it most certainly wouldn't be to hard for God to explain to anyone, nor are you mentally superior to any of the prophets of God in any way shape or form for believing it.
Exo 20:1
And God spake all these words, saying,...................................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
It is God Himself you deny, His power, and His testimony.
Ecc 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Was the man who said the above ignorant as you suggest, believing the earth does not move, and the sun rotates around it? Or are you ignorant for thinking you know what this man thought regarding the the same from this one sentence statement spoken while addressing issues other than how the sun and earth move in relation to each other? We still say the sun rises and sets today, do we believe the sun rotates around the earth? Even if this man did believe as you suggest, which we do not know from this one obscure statement, what does this have to do with humanities ability to comprehend evolutionary theory or not? Do you think you are smarter than Solomon was, or any other of the bible writers or prophets simply because you were able to comprehend that the earth revolves around the sun when someone told you that? We know you didn't make that discovery. Do you seriously believe that God told these things to people of the past because they simply could not handle the truth about them like you can now? Are you not arrogantly ignorant yourself for believing such? Yes, I believe you are.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 19:18:44
C.S. Lewis described the witch in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe , saying she knew the magic at the beginning, but did not know the deep magic before the beginning.
Science is like that. We have no way of knowing scientifically what there was before the creation, because science is limited to nature.
Knowing that God is at the heart of creation is what really matters, it clears up the mysteries surrounding unknowns such as "what existed before the big bang" or "where did this sudden burst of energy originate from".
: 4WD Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 13:42:38
Actually I would be willing to bet that there are far more Christians who accept some form of evolution than those who reject it. The YECs actually are the rather tiny little group and represent a very small percentage of Christians.
I think you are severely underestimating the size of the YEC group. You should get out more.
YE creationists are a minority in the United States, but they are a sizable minority:
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
Younger evangelicals are less likely to accept YE creationism, and this is an ongoing trend.
Among Christians worldwide, YE creationism is a tiny minority.
Knowing that God is at the heart of creation is what really matters, it clears up the mysteries surrounding unknowns such as "what existed before the big bang" or "where did this sudden burst of energy originate from".
Yep.
Fewer and fewer young people are likely to be evangelical at all much less YE.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 19:18:44
C.S. Lewis described the witch in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe , saying she knew the magic at the beginning, but did not know the deep magic before the beginning.
Science is like that. We have no way of knowing scientifically what there was before the creation, because science is limited to nature.
We have no way of knowing scientifically or not, about what God have not revealed to us. The matter of the fact is, even that what God had revealed to us in scriptures, we even come short of knowing it all, if only with our human finite carnal minds.
Science is no different from the other methods that mankind, in his search for wisdom and knowledge, have come up, for his own benefit. But this wisdom and knowledge that he desired is of the flesh (carnal), for it is not in the search of God. Science, man say is basically knowledge based on observed reality in the things around him, yet the same, even while they observe the reality of man's ungodliness and unrighteousness, they seem to not mind it and cast it aside, as if this has nothing to do with the revelation of God. And even while all can observe and see, in the reality around them, the things that are made, the very existence of God, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and Godhead, the man apparently simply does not take it by heart.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead, so that
they are without excuse, 21 because, although
they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
They are without excuse, in not knowing God. They could not say, they knew not God. There simply is no excuse. For God had made it plain for all man, scientist or not, to see it clearly.
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for
God has shown it to them.
And here's what scriptures said about them who exchanged the truth of God for the lie:
22
Professing to be wise, they became fools,
And here's what God did regarding them who did not like to retain the knowledge of God:
26
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Now, to those who spend their life in the pursuit of the knowledge that they find in world philosophy & science, in all its fields, which they admit as concerning only the physical world, and nothing about God, hear what God have to say about wisdom & knowledge, and of the world:
Colossians 2:1 For...................the Father and of Christ, 3
in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world.
If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.
To the Christian scientist and the Christian scientist to be, consider this about the unbeliever:
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 John 4:5
They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God.
He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 01:10:36We have no way of knowing scientifically or not, about what God have not revealed to us.
Michael, that was a very silly statement. Do you know how to read? Was that revealed to you by God? Obviously we can know about God only what God has revealed about Himself. In fact we can know about the spiritual realm only that which God has revealed about the spiritual realm. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can know about the physical world.
To the Christian scientist and the Christian scientist to be, consider this about the unbeliever:
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 John 4:5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Clearly both of those verses relate to the spiritual, not the physical.
: Amo Fri Dec 01, 2017 - 20:19:01
Right, like I said, God uses you now as the new prophets because in your own mind in any case you are much smarter, simply more intelligent.....
Talking to and about yourself again Amo? You really need to watch that. It is a habit that can lead you into bad things.
: 4WD Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 05:10:35
Michael, that was a very silly statement. Do you know how to read? Was that revealed to you by God? Obviously we can know about God only what God has revealed about Himself. In fact we can know about the spiritual realm only that which God has revealed about the spiritual realm. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can know about the physical world.
Clearly you are the silly one.
If God has not revealed something to us, in whatever shape or form, we can't know it.
It is impossible for us to know that which is not revealed, whether it be spiritual or physical.
Very odd you have an argument with that.
: 4WD Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 05:10:35
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 01:10:36
We have no way of knowing scientifically or not, about what God have not revealed to us.
Michael, that was a very silly statement. Do you know how to read? Was that revealed to you by God? Obviously we can know about God only what God has revealed about Himself. In fact we can know about the spiritual realm only that which God has revealed about the spiritual realm. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we can know about the physical world.
Not if you did not drop my next statement which is:
The matter of the fact is, even that what God had revealed to us in scriptures, we even come short of knowing it all, if only with our human finite carnal minds. The point of what I said is that, God did not reveal to man how He created or what happened in the beginning of His creation. So, there is no point for the scientist in trying to know how the physical world begun, for what God had not revealed to man, man cannot know, no matter how brilliant a scientist he may well be. At best, what he can come up with is but a brilliant speculation.
: 4WD Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 05:10:35
To the Christian scientist and the Christian scientist to be, consider this about the unbeliever:
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 John 4:5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Clearly both of those verses relate to the spiritual, not the physical.
No sir. The Colossian scriptures speak of philosophy, tradition of men, and basic principles of the world. These things refer not to spiritual things of God, but of the things of the physical natural world and man. The 1 John 4 scriptures speaks of those who are of the world, those whose mind and heart is in the material world, its wisdom, knowledge, pleasures and works.
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 07:20:50
The matter of the fact is, even that what God had revealed to us in scriptures, we even come short of knowing it all, if only with our human finite carnal minds.
The point of what I said is that, God did not reveal to man how He created or what happened in the beginning of His creation. So, there is no point for the scientist in trying to know how the physical world begun, for what God had not revealed to man, man cannot know, no matter how brilliant a scientist he may well be. At best, what he can come up with is but a brilliant speculation.
This entire thread continues to go in circles. The physical universe and our world within leaves evidence of how, why, when, matter and life came to be. Our faith in God places Him at the onset of all things created, it isn't a lie, fraud, mistake, delusion, or any anti-god agenda, it's simply the facts collected that point to creation.
To minimize the work of scientists as "brilliant speculation" shows a clear lack of scientific understanding, I suggest some people study some of the known scientific theories and show us where the errors have occurred.
Yet science in general will not acknowledge a creator. A creator factually existing, as he does, cannot be ignored by those who purport to be fact mongers. Yes there are some Christian Scientist, but science in general refuses to admit to the glaring fact of a Creator. And facts is what science is about. If textbooks would address the beginning instant of some matter from somewhere exploded into something by just saying common sense even reason points to a Creator, rather than trying to hypothesize something coming from nothing. Why must every explanation of that primal moment be attempted to be explained by no reasonable explanation. And why is no reasonable explanation better than just admitting they don't know and it could be a point of creation by a Creator. Again I realize that is exactly what some here say, but no scientific textbook will admit even that. If there is point me to it and the secular schools that teach from it.
: Jaime Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 08:16:44
Yet science in general will not acknowledge a creator. A creator factually existing, as he does, cannot be ignored by those who purport to be fact mongers. Yes there are some Christian Scientist, but science in general refuses to admit to the glaring fact of a Creator. And facts is what science is about. If textbooks would address the beginning instant of some matter from somewhere exploded into something by just saying common sense even reason points to a Creator, rather than trying to hypothesize something coming from nothing. Why must every explanation of that primal moment be attempted to be explained by no reasonable explanation. And why is no reasonable explanation better than just admitting they don't know and it could be a point of creation by a Creator. Again I realize that is exactly what some here say, but no scientific textbook will admit even that. If there is point me to it and the secular schools that teach from it.
That's not the point, since the vast majority of scientists would likely consider themselves agnostic and some even atheist, the idea of "creation" gets dismissed quickly. There exists no evidence to support the origins of matter and life, it is our faith in God that leads us to believe that it was He whom created. That said, the lack of spirituality in the field of science shouldn't detract from the evidence that
has been brought to light.
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 07:59:01
This entire thread continues to go in circles. The physical universe and our world within leaves evidence of how, why, when, matter and life came to be. Our faith in God places Him at the onset of all things created, it isn't a lie, fraud, mistake, delusion, or any anti-god agenda, it's simply the facts collected that point to creation.
To minimize the work of scientists as "brilliant speculation" shows a clear lack of scientific understanding, I suggest some people study some of the known scientific theories and show us where the errors have occurred.
I am not all minimizing all the works of scientists as "brilliant speculation". My statement has a context, which is, on the matter on how God created or what happened in the beginning of His creation, or how the physical world begun, or if there is anything or nothing in the beginning.
With regards known scientific theories made by scientist, how would you expect the ordinary minded man to show the errors? Besides, there is no need for that. History teaches us how even these theories changed over time, which tells us that what knowledge acquired through science, is a kind where falseness becomes hidden behind some truth, or behind what scientists perceives as true in the physical world.
In our daily life, we see things happen the way science tells us. But likewise, we also see things happen differently. And every time things does not happen in accordance to what science teaches, what then?
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 08:40:49
That's not the point, since the vast majority of scientists would likely consider themselves agnostic and some even atheist, the idea of "creation" gets dismissed quickly. There exists no evidence to support the origins of matter and life, it is our faith in God that leads us to believe that it was He whom created. That said, the lack of spirituality in the field of science shouldn't detract from the evidence that has been brought to light.
And unless you understand all of this science, you are placing your faith in scientists.
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 08:40:49
That's not the point, since the vast majority of scientists would likely consider themselves agnostic and some even atheist, the idea of "creation" gets dismissed quickly. There exists no evidence to support the origins of matter and life, it is our faith in God that leads us to believe that it was He whom created. That said, the lack of spirituality in the field of science shouldn't detract from the evidence that has been brought to light.
And yet scripture argues differently.
It is written that God has made Himself CLEARLY present in His creation, so that no-one is without excuse. All truth resides in God, so those who doubt God or dismiss Him do not know the truth..they can't know the truth.
Now if you believe that God created this universe, then all the evidence scientists find can only point towards God.
Then if a scientist rejects God, he clearly does not know how to interpret the evidence, right?
And what value does a scientist have if he does not understand the evidence?
Scientist argument for the origin of matter is no less "out there" than a creator creating it by whatever means. Science is missing the boat and hurting themselves by not at least acknowledging the possibility of a creator as opposed to some other non-divine incredulous hocus pocus.
On the matter of the beginnings of everything that there is in the universe.
Science/Scientists theorized:
In the beginning, was the big bang!
God in Scriptures revealed:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Science/Scientists theorized:
Non-living matter produced or brought forth life forms by the long process of evolution. This includes everything from the simple living cell to the more complex plants, animals, and man.
God in Scriptures revealed:
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.
Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
On the matter of the beginning of mankind:
Science/Scientists theorized:
Man evolved, as with the great apes, from a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Man came from likewise evolved ape-like creatures, by evolution.
God in Scriptures revealed:
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
There is a side here that no one has contemplated. We are aliens on this planet. We did not somehow come from molten rock that once covered earth, we came from afar.
And those aliens that planted the seed of life on this planet are still with us today.
(:-
Evidence for your position does not automatically mean your position is correct.
Now, to those who spend their life in the pursuit of the knowledge that they find in world philosophy & science, in all its fields, which they admit as concerning only the physical world, and nothing about God, hear what God have to say about wisdom & knowledge, and of the world...
I know a lot of biologists, most of them theists of some kind. Even the ones who profess not to be theists, there is a recognition of a spiritual dimension to studying life in our world. Every now and then, somewhere alone where there is just me and nature, I get an epiphany when all of it comes together and I apprehend the glory and wonder of His creation in this world:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7063/6974006215_4108aeca2f_b.jpg)
Scientist argument for the origin of matter is no less "out there" than a creator creating it by whatever means.
There is considerable evidence to support the origin of the universe in an expansion of space itself billions of years ago. However, none of that excludes God as the final cause of this expansion, or the Creator of space itself before that moment.
Science is missing the boat and hurting themselves by not at least acknowledging the possibility of a creator as opposed to some other non-divine incredulous hocus pocus.
Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. It can't say anything about God. Pretty much like plumbing.
But scientists can. There are other ways of knowing these things.
Scientist certainly can but most do not. It would be akin in their eyes to signing on with man caused gullible warming deniers.
That is right, science cannot address God, AND Scientist are doing the same poor job trying to explain the origin of matter without injecting God, which doesn't fit any paradigm either. If science can make the sweeping assumptions it does, why not the perfectly reasonable starting place of a Creator. The evidence of intelligent design is far greater than the something out of nothing hypothesis-es.
: AVZ Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 10:26:49
Now if you believe that God created this universe, then all the evidence scientists find can only point towards God.
Then if a scientist rejects God, he clearly does not know how to interpret the evidence, right?
And what value does a scientist have if he does not understand the evidence?
So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? ???
Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.
And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.
: Jaime Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:12:01
And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable will notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.
Philosophically perhaps, but not scientifically.
: Jaime Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:12:01
And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable will notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.
Many, many, many do, that is the crux of this thread.
Yes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great. To me theistic evolution is a far fetched attempt to answer the unexplainable by Christians that have later become scientists.
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:09:02
So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? ???
Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.
we are not talking about observation but evidence.
It is very simple. If God created this universe, then all evidence for its existence points to God, or a creator as you will.
The Bible states that God has clearly and obviously revealed Himself in nature to the point that someone who will not recognize His hand in it, will be without excuse.
It therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:
- is a willfull liar
- interprets the evidence incorrectly or ignores it
- is without excuse for making the false conclusion
Why would I accept anything these guys have to say about the universe? They either have no clue what they are talking about or they lie about it.
: Jaime Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:32:24
Yes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great.
That's where Barbarian's belief that the interpretation of Genesis is not a salvation issue becomes vital, if more of us (regardless of which was we believe creation to have happened) set aside our own interpretations and relayed the message that "God just did it", maybe more would be inclined to gain a further understanding.
: AVZ Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:50:17
we are not talking about observation but evidence.
It is very simple. If God created this universe, then all evidence for its existence points to God, or a creator as you will.
The Bible states that God has clearly and obviously revealed Himself in nature to the point that someone who will not recognize His hand in it, will be without excuse.
It therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:
- is a willfull liar
- interprets the evidence incorrectly or ignores it
- is without excuse for making the false conclusion
Why would I accept anything these guys have to say about the universe? They either have no clue what they are talking about or they lie about it.
You sure know how to dance around a subject when you've been shown the obvious. rofl
Moving along....
I never claimed it was a salvation issue. It is simply obvious vs not so obvious. Ironic to me to have such a view at the same time as being a pragmatic seeker of answers. Yes, God did it. There is no reason to theistically explain the Big Bang with the inexplicable, when plain observation is more than adequate observation of a Creator. And not just a Causer of a Big Bang.
Yes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great. To me theistic evolution is a far fetched attempt to answer the unexplainable by Christians that have later become scientists.
I am personally aware of a good number of them. Granted, some of them were Muslim or Jewish believers, but there are also a fair number of former atheists who became Christians after they were scientists. The most notable example, is Francis Collins:
Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.
Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the advancement of evolutionary creation.[3] In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
It therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:
Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.
He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 17:25:38
Now, to those who spend their life in the pursuit of the knowledge that they find in world philosophy & science, in all its fields, which they admit as concerning only the physical world, and nothing about God, hear what God have to say about wisdom & knowledge, and of the world...
Colossians 2:1 For...................the Father and of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
I know a lot of biologists, most of them theists of some kind. Even the ones who profess not to be theists, there is a recognition of a spiritual dimension to studying life in our world. Every now and then, somewhere alone where there is just me and nature, I get an epiphany when all of it comes together and I apprehend the glory and wonder of His creation in this world:
I'm pretty sure most of us who have gone to early school, were taught a little of science and a little of religion. So, it is no wonder that many a people have some kind of a taught knowledge & sense of god and of science. And in this physical world, there is indeed a wide range of interests that each of us can choose from and with which each spend their life on. In your case, that seems to be the nature around you that are said to have life (scientific meaning). And there's nothing wrong about that. It's what gives you pleasure and satisfaction. And it's nice to hear that with it you apprehend the glory and wonder of God's creation in this world.
However, not every scientist are like you. So, that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is about the world of science/scientists which aims to know even what is obviously unknowable, like the origin of life and of matter. It apparently has the belief that they have the power and wisdom to know through science. Apparently, to them, science is the way to the knowledge of all physical living and non-living reality, even their origins.
Another issue is that, science to them, so it seems, is a work that is achieved that depends in himself. He ask himself a question, then observes, gather data, hypothesize, experiments, calculates, theorize, and so on until he satisfactorily convinced himself that he had known the answer. And these they call scientific knowledge, they preach to all, and that, with great zeal. They seem to consider their work all good, essentially good even that all man should be taught of, and they seem to believe is for the good of all humanity and the world. Is science slowly showing itself a religion that has the self as the god? For I find it rather rare that scientist like you give glory to God because of science. The scientific world in general, takes credit and glory for their scientific works.
Yet another issue, is that, it seems that, while they say that they are doing what they do, for the good of mankind, some wanted to act like nature, and the scientific community seems to see nothing wrong about that. Some go to the point that he wanted to create in the lab what is created by nature. He does not see anything wrong with artificially impregnating women, or even a test tube baby, for example. Some may say, it's not science, it's the scientist who does that. Well perhaps, but it is science that gave the scientist the knowledge to do such things. Besides, science is man-made, and is about the physical and nothing about the spiritual, and so does not deal with morality. So, that implies that this scientific knowledge of artificial reproduction, the creation of a human life, is neither bad nor good. The scientist then who performs and applies this knowledge, scientifically speaking, does not do anything bad.
The question then is for us Christians, and especially to the scientist Christian like you, for every bit of scientific knowledge that the scientist comes up with based on his scientific work, is such scientific knowledge, knowledge of good or knowledge of evil? And may I add, as it makes me wonder, on the matter of artificial reproduction of man, does the resulting creature have a soul like those naturally born?
Also, is this matter part of the evolution of man? If so, what part is this in the evolution of man? Is this part of Darwin's evolution by natural selection theory?
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:09:02
So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? ???
Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.
Why do you think he is an atheist in the first place?
And of course he refuse to see God in whatever he observes, the rain, the stars, the moon, the sun, the oceans, etc.
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 23:05:22
Why do you think he is an atheist in the first place?
He was asking question in the hypothetical sense. But of course you knew that. You just didn't want to answer the question because it would obviously defeat the point you tried to make concerning observation and the development of knowledge.
: 4WD Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:16:03
Philosophically perhaps, but not scientifically.
Same old played out and tired heap of dung. An atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist looks at the earth as their evidence and determines it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, and that is science because they said so. A creationist looks at the same evidence and rightly determines that millions of years certainly are not necessary when an outside agency, (God)which most obviously designed the unimaginable complexity that is life, was involved. The latter according to the former cannot be science, because, well, they said so. Baloney! You will not define what observations constitute genuine science for me or anyone else but in your own self important twisted mind.
Evolutionary science and scientists have made observations that they promoted as absolute truth that have been proved wrong over and over and over again. Just as creation scientists have as well. This simply because science is making observations in order to try and establish that which cannot necessarily be seen or deduced without serious investigation and or some speculation in the formation of theories. Those who absolutely insist that their observations are unquestionable and unquestionably the only true scientific observations, are either extremely conceded and self important, or clearly demonstrating faith regarding the theories developed by those they support. Faith is the bottom line of both sides of this issue period. Creationists are just of course more willing to admit, that their observations are based on the belief that God's word is an accurate account of our origins. Evolutionists on the other hand choose a different path. Their faith is for the most part, in the observations of fallen humanities own conjectures and theories apart from the word of God. Their faith is in there own intellect and skill of observation, over the testimony of scripture. That is all.
Evolutionists can tell themselves and others that only their observations constitute true science over and over as many times as they wish, it will never make it so. To the contrary, such is the very hight of self delusion. The fact that when people tell themselves something over and over enough times tends to toward belief, will never make anything true. The people on this board who are creationists are not mentally inferior to evolutionists at all. Their observations are every bit as tenable and demonstrative as those of evolutionists who are themselves simply those of another faith, some of whom, demand their faith is the only real science. Hogwash!
Evolutionists simply have no faith in the scriptures which testify of God's creation in six days. Their faith is in other observations of fallen humanity. That is all. Because of that faith, they cannot take large sections of scripture literally. Not to mention, adequately explain the many dichotomies created by this denial concerning the rest of the testimony given in scripture.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Creation and evolution are theories which require faith regarding that which cannot be seen. It did not and most often does not take place right in front of us. Creationists faith is in the word of God, the bible. Evolutionists faith is in the word of man, fallen humanity. That is all.
: Alan Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:51:46
That's where Barbarian's belief that the interpretation of Genesis is not a salvation issue becomes vital, if more of us (regardless of which was we believe creation to have happened) set aside our own interpretations and relayed the message that "God just did it", maybe more would be inclined to gain a further understanding.
Which is nothing less than to say, if more of us would jut set aside the testimony of scripture in favor of the testimony of man, maybe more would be inclined to have faith in man over the word of God. Yes lets reduce the testimony of Genesis and other large portions of scripture to just four words, "God just did it", because evolutionists say it will make things so much easier. Yet so many cannot see the open warfare evolution makes upon the word of God. It is no wonder that the Church of Rome which fought so long to keep the word of God out of the hands of the people, has embraced evolution, it seems they share the desire to stifle the word of God with the superior observations of man or a man as they see it. Shall we now reduce the creation account in Genesis, the fourth commandment, and all other testimony in scripture of creation in six days to "God just did it" for the convenience of evolutionists and Catholics who either don't appreciate or choose to bellevue it?
2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Are evolutionists now more enlightened than the apostle Paul? Apparently they believe so.
: Amo Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 10:25:49
Which is nothing less than to say, if more of us would jut set aside the testimony of scripture in favor of the testimony of man, maybe more would be inclined to have faith in man over the word of God. Yes lets reduce the testimony of Genesis and other large portions of scripture to just four words, "God just did it", because evolutionists say it will make things so much easier. Yet so many cannot see the open warfare evolution makes upon the word of God. It is no wonder that the Church of Rome which fought so long to keep the word of God out of the hands of the people, has embraced evolution, it seems they share the desire to stifle the word of God with the superior observations of man or a man as they see it. Shall we now reduce the creation account in Genesis, the fourth commandment, and all other testimony in scripture of creation in six days to "God just did it" for the convenience of evolutionists and Catholics who either don't appreciate or choose to bellevue it?
Nope.
: Amo Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 09:18:18
Same old played out and tired heap of dung. An atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist looks at the earth as their evidence and determines it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, and that is science because they said so. A creationist looks at the same evidence and rightly determines that millions of years certainly are not necessary when an outside agency, (God)which most obviously designed the unimaginable complexity that is life, was involved. The latter according to the former cannot be science, because, well, they said so. Baloney! You will not define what observations constitute genuine science for me or anyone else but in your own self important twisted mind.
Perhaps an atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist does look at the evidence and determines the universe it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, but so does the Christian evolutionist. [Actually it is billions and billions not millions and millions] But you seem to be so thoroughly self-righteous in your own views that any other than those preclude one from being a Christian. And you talk about a heap of dung
! ! !
: 4WD Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 14:48:28
[Actually it is billions and billions not millions and millions]
I honestly do not give a flying fig if it is millions or billions, or only thousands of years old.
What do you say is the age of man, as identified and defined by Adam (and Eve)?
If you are honest that is the only thing that should concern anyone because that is relevant to where we all will be spending eternity once
we manage to escape this spaceship we are on, called earth.
I believe that if Usher's accounting of the time between Adam and Jesus is anywhere close to being correct then man, the human being defined as one to whom God has given a spirit, is in the range of 6000 to 10,000 years old. That says nothing whatsoever about the hundreds of thousands of years for which hominids other than man may have walked the earth or about the age of the earth or the universe.
: 4WD Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 15:20:00
I believe that if Usher's accounting of the time between Adam and Jesus is anywhere close to being correct then man, the human being defined as one to whom God has given a spirit, is in the range of 6000 to 10,000 years old. That says nothing whatsoever about the hundreds of thousands of years for which hominids other than man may have walked the earth or about the age of the earth or the universe.
I agree with this. (And some readers here know why)
But how do you account for the creation story in Genesis.
I am referring to the God created in 7 days, which most believe was 7 literal days.
Even if you were to take into account
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
That only could stretch creation of when God began creation bionically back 6 or 7 thousand years.
Can you rectify a million/billion year theory with the Bible.... or have we finally found a biblical error?
Ginger Rella,
First, I believe that 2 Peter 3:8 is not asserting some sort of mathematical formula for years in God's eyes, but rather the fact that time is totally irrelevant in God's eyes; it is meaningless. Let's face it, in God's realm of eternity of what significance is a few billion years? The obvious answer is none whatsoever. Billions and billions of years do not constitute even an infinitesimal dot along the time-line of eternity.
Second, I think the message of the Genesis account of creation is not one of a detail of how but rather one of a detail of who; that is, who God is; He is Creator God. There is no error.
Third, I have no problem rectifying a million/billion year theory with the Bible. There are places in the universe even today in which only days have passed while in that interval millions/billions of years have passed here on earth. That is one of the remarkable results of Einstein's theory of relativity. If viewed from the very beginning from the point of view of the expansion of space and relativity, it is easy to rectify the billions of years looking back from earth's perspective with mere days looking forward from God's perspective. The Jewish physicist/theologian Gerald Schroeder explains how this can be in his article, The Age Of The Universe, which you can find here:
http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53
It is written for the non-technical so I think you might find it interesting. His point is that the scientific view of billions of years and the biblical view of days are one and the same. They are just presented from a different point of view with respect to the space-time considerations within relativity.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 22:34:22
Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.
He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.
You are missing the point. Scripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.
That makes every scientist who studies nature and insists God is not involved a dumbass.
So here we have a guy who according to scripture comes to an obvious impossible conclusion.
And why would we then take such a scientist seriously?
I can imagine the layman being swept away by the evolution argument, but if God says that He purposely presented Himself in nature, then the scientists whose profession it is to study that nature must be the biggest morons alive for not acknowledging the obvious.
Hiding themselves behind the statement that science cannot say anything about the supernatural is the excuse of a fool.
: AVZ Mon Dec 04, 2017 - 07:20:06You are missing the point. Scripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.
No, you are missing the point. There is nothing about evolution that says that God is not involved. It is one explanation of the manner in which God is involved. The fact that a scientist does not acknowledge God as being involved does not change God's involvement or the manner of God's involvement. Your explanation of God's involvement relies entirely on your translation/interpretation of one Hebrew word, i.e.,
"yome", as it is used in the Genesis account of creation. Now unless you are a Hebrew scholar, and I do not think you are, that is a terribly tenuous position to be in. And an even more tenuous position from which to denigrate any who disagree with you.
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
To the Christian scientists:
1. When God will create the new heavens and the new earth, what "matter" do you think will the heavens and the earth be made up of?
2. Will the new earth be made up of millions and billions years old of evolved materials or what?
3. Will the new heavens and the new earth be created in a matter of days, weeks, months, or billion of years?
4. Will there be another big bang to this effect?
5. Will the lion have evolved to eat straw and the wolf and the lamb evolved that they shall feed together?
: Michael
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?-To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
2. At what point will man stop to evolve?-Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?-All life has a creator, that creator is God.
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?-Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Barbarian observes:
Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.
He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.
You are missing the point.
No, I think you're misunderstanding what science can do. It's not a source of ultimate truth. It's just a way of figuring out how nature works. It's like plumbing. You learn about some principles and then use those to figure out problems and make things work. God is behind all the phenomena that a plumber must understand, but he doesn't need to know that to work as a plumber.
Scripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.
There are times when I see nature as a scientist at the same time I see it as a Christian. Those times are deep epiphanies for me. But you don't have to have both of them at once.
That makes every scientist who studies nature and insists God is not involved a dumbass.
Nope. I know some very capable and perceptive scientists who are not theists.
I can imagine the layman being swept away by the evolution argument,
Evidence carries the day, after all.
Hiding themselves behind the statement that science cannot say anything about the supernatural is the excuse of a fool.
If you think so, you have misunderstood one or both of them.
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
Comment:
Is there scientific evidence that the biological evolution of man have stopped or point towards the prediction of a stoppage? And in past ages, have man not adopted cultural evolution even then, so that since at this present age, they have ceased to evolve biologically, that now have adopted this cultural evolution? Is their stopping to biologically evolve and their adoption to evolve now culturally, was by choice and decision or was by what?
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
Comment:
Yes, being Christians, we know and believe that. But with regards the scientific theory of evolution, the question remains not addressed, if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter in accordance to the theory of the evolution of life and of man?
Michael:
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
Alan:
Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Comment:
So, to you it seems, morality and moral conduct and consciousness is a part and product of evolution. Is morality dependent and relative then to evolution?
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Environmental issues are the biggest causes of extinction. If the environment changes faster than a species can evolve, it will become extinct. There are other reasons to which a species may end up on the extinction list such as an unbalanced prey/predator scenario that may have been caused by environmental issues of it's own, or possibly even man's interjection, Lord knows we have caused considerable damage on this great planet.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
Comment:
Is there scientific evidence that the biological evolution of man have stopped or point towards the prediction of a stoppage? And in past ages, have man not adopted cultural evolution even then, so that since at this present age, they have ceased to evolve biologically, that now have adopted this cultural evolution? Is their stopping to biologically evolve and their adoption to evolve now culturally, was by choice and decision or was by what?
To fully understand cultural evolution, we must accept the possibility that man has taken control of his shortcomings through knowledge and subsequent sociological changes. Man is not waiting on nature to make us better and stronger.
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
Comment:
Yes, being Christians, we know and believe that. But with regards the scientific theory of evolution, the question remains not addressed, if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter in accordance to the theory of the evolution of life and of man?
Since I don't believe that any life can begin from proteins, NaCl, and a rogue electrical storm, nor do any reasonable hypothesis exist that can explain the origins of life, sans creator, I don't think the question is relevant If you're asking if a species that had it's shot and became extinct could somehow manage to re-emerge, the answer is no. Life forms are complex creatures that largely depended on their direct environment, the changes to the earth alone would prevent an extinct species from re-emerging.
There does exist something called convergent evolution, where species may have similar appearances, but they are never a direct match.
Michael:
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
Alan:
Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Comment:
So, to you it seems, morality and moral conduct and consciousness is a part and product of evolution. Is morality dependent and relative then to evolution?
Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God, however, man's instinctive nature could very well have hindered any ability he had to make conscionable, empathetic, and wise decisions. Thank God for God.
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Environmental issues are the biggest causes of extinction. If the environment changes faster than a species can evolve, it will become extinct. There are other reasons to which a species may end up on the extinction list such as an unbalanced prey/predator scenario that may have been caused by environmental issues of it's own, or possibly even man's interjection, Lord knows we have caused considerable damage on this great planet.
comment :
I understand that there may be a lot of scientific reasons that causes extinction. Nevertheless, the point remains that, as science itself says that more than 99 percent of all species have become extinct, which refutes what you say is the purpose of evolution. And that would make a negative implication about God who you believe is the mind behind evolution.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
Comment:
Is there scientific evidence that the biological evolution of man have stopped or point towards the prediction of a stoppage? And in past ages, have man not adopted cultural evolution even then, so that since at this present age, they have ceased to evolve biologically, that now have adopted this cultural evolution? Is their stopping to biologically evolve and their adoption to evolve now culturally, was by choice and decision or was by what?
To fully understand cultural evolution, we must accept the possibility that man has taken control of his shortcomings through knowledge and subsequent sociological changes. Man is not waiting on nature to make us better and stronger.
Comment:
Man is not waiting on nature to make them better and stronger? By that then are you saying that man could have decided to disrupt the natural course of evolution and take matters in his own hands, his evolution at that? And I could just imagine where this will lead to ~ considering even what you said that man have caused considerable damage on this great planet, and the biblical revelation that man disobeyed God and was corrupted by sin, and that there is nothing good that dwells in his flesh.
Nonetheless, it seems that there is nothing presented here by science to the effect that man stopped to evolve biologically or predict such stoppage. To the contrary, in what science says, all things point to the continuance of evolution of things, including man, by implication.
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
Comment:
Yes, being Christians, we know and believe that. But with regards the scientific theory of evolution, the question remains not addressed, if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter in accordance to the theory of the evolution of life and of man?
Since I don't believe that any life can begin from proteins, NaCl, and a rogue electrical storm, nor do any reasonable hypothesis exist that can explain the origins of life, sans creator, I don't think the question is relevant If you're asking if a species that had it's shot and became extinct could somehow manage to re-emerge, the answer is no. Life forms are complex creatures that largely depended on their direct environment, the changes to the earth alone would prevent an extinct species from re-emerging.
There does exist something called convergent evolution, where species may have similar appearances, but they are never a direct match.
Comment:
If you don't believe otherwise than that which science tells you about how life evolved from non-living matter, what have you to say about this scientific matter which I suppose is held by the scientific community as scientific knowledge?
Now, with regards the extinction of the present evolved species of man, based on scientific data and knowledge, extinction of the present man is highly predicted. That implies to be the end of our kind, of the present human species.
Michael:
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
Alan:
Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Comment:
So, to you it seems, morality and moral conduct and consciousness is a part and product of evolution. Is morality dependent and relative then to evolution?
Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God, however, man's instinctive nature could very well have hindered any ability he had to make conscionable, empathetic, and wise decisions. Thank God for God.
Comment:
Can you explain briefly what you mean in saying that morality is part of man's social structure, even as you believe, before man were given the spirit of God? Or is not our sense of morality part of man's personal nature?
Does science find man as a creature that have evolved into a moral species?
Michael, So many straw men. The only thing that you show in so much of your discussion about evolution or science is that you really know so little about either. Therefore so many of your questions are rather silly. Your very last question. i.e.
Does science find man as a creature that have evolved into a moral species?
demonstrates that. Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever.
You assume that evolution and science are incompatible with belief in God. That is false. And since it is false, so much of what you have to say about evolution and science is false also.
P.S. You should learn to use singular verbs with singular subjects and plural verbs with plural subjects. Your apparent lack of knowledge of basic English grammar doesn't help your arguments.
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Environmental issues are the biggest causes of extinction. If the environment changes faster than a species can evolve, it will become extinct. There are other reasons to which a species may end up on the extinction list such as an unbalanced prey/predator scenario that may have been caused by environmental issues of it's own, or possibly even man's interjection, Lord knows we have caused considerable damage on this great planet.
comment :
I understand that there may be a lot of scientific reasons that causes extinction. Nevertheless, the point remains that, as science itself says that more than 99 percent of all species have become extinct, which refutes what you say is the purpose of evolution. And that would make a negative implication about God who you believe is the mind behind evolution.
The purpose or causes of evolution cannot circumvent sudden and/or catastrophic environmental changes, as the earth changes, species evolve. That is a fact.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
Comment:
Is there scientific evidence that the biological evolution of man have stopped or point towards the prediction of a stoppage? And in past ages, have man not adopted cultural evolution even then, so that since at this present age, they have ceased to evolve biologically, that now have adopted this cultural evolution? Is their stopping to biologically evolve and their adoption to evolve now culturally, was by choice and decision or was by what?
To fully understand cultural evolution, we must accept the possibility that man has taken control of his shortcomings through knowledge and subsequent sociological changes. Man is not waiting on nature to make us better and stronger.
Comment:
Man is not waiting on nature to make them better and stronger? By that then are you saying that man could have decided to disrupt the natural course of evolution and take matters in his own hands, his evolution at that? And I could just imagine where this will lead to ~ considering even what you said that man have caused considerable damage on this great planet, and the biblical revelation that man disobeyed God and was corrupted by sin, and that there is nothing good that dwells in his flesh.
Nonetheless, it seems that there is nothing presented here by science to the effect that man stopped to evolve biologically or predict such stoppage. To the contrary, in what science says, all things point to the continuance of evolution of things, including man, by implication.
Man has developed housing so we may live in climates that would be otherwise uninhabitable, we have created our own food stuffs, we have learned to travel the globe, we have learned (somewhat) how to heal the sick and injured, we have invented medicines to prolong our lives, we have created (strong possibilities) that kill people in masses, and then learned how to eradicate said diseases in populations. The list could go on and on, but these are the very things that have and will continue to disrupt man's natural and biological evolution.
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
Comment:
Yes, being Christians, we know and believe that. But with regards the scientific theory of evolution, the question remains not addressed, if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter in accordance to the theory of the evolution of life and of man?
Since I don't believe that any life can begin from proteins, NaCl, and a rogue electrical storm, nor do any reasonable hypothesis exist that can explain the origins of life, sans creator, I don't think the question is relevant If you're asking if a species that had it's shot and became extinct could somehow manage to re-emerge, the answer is no. Life forms are complex creatures that largely depended on their direct environment, the changes to the earth alone would prevent an extinct species from re-emerging.
There does exist something called convergent evolution, where species may have similar appearances, but they are never a direct match.
Comment:
If you don't believe otherwise than that which science tells you about how life evolved from non-living matter, what have you to say about this scientific matter which I suppose is held by the scientific community as scientific knowledge?
Now, with regards the extinction of the present evolved species of man, based on scientific data and knowledge, extinction of the present man is highly predicted. That implies to be the end of our kind, of the present human species.
Science DOES NOT tell us life began from inanimate matter, it has some suggestions but that is all. Science also does not create philosophical quotients based upon a lack of data or evidence; "if the origins of life cannot be verified via scientific testing, it does not result in the only viable answer being a creator". IOW, science will very often say, "we just don't know at this time".
Michael:
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
Alan:
Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Comment:
So, to you it seems, morality and moral conduct and consciousness is a part and product of evolution. Is morality dependent and relative then to evolution?
Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God, however, man's instinctive nature could very well have hindered any ability he had to make conscionable, empathetic, and wise decisions. Thank God for God.
Comment:
Can you explain briefly what you mean in saying that morality is part of man's social structure, even as you believe, before man were given the spirit of God? Or is not our sense of morality part of man's personal nature?
Does science find man as a creature that have evolved into a moral species?
Does it not seem reasonable to you that as man became aware of his surroundings, his like people, the seasons, etc, that he also began to show signs sociological structure? Other species display some sense of morality within their likeness, primarily other primates. Adversely, other species show extreme social structure within their types but are completely devoid of any sense of morality.
4WD is correct, man's sense of morality is not scientifically quantitative, it is more likely a psychosocial/historical/philosophical study.
: 4WD Wed Dec 06, 2017 - 06:26:37
Michael, So many straw men. The only thing that you show in so much of your discussion about evolution or science is that you really know so little about either. Therefore so many of your questions are rather silly. Your very last question. i.e.
Does science find man as a creature that have evolved into a moral species?
demonstrates that. Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever.
You assume that evolution and science are incompatible with belief in God. That is false. And since it is false, so much of what you have to say about evolution and science is false also.
P.S. You should learn to use singular verbs with singular subjects and plural verbs with plural subjects. Your apparent lack of knowledge of basic English grammar doesn't help your arguments.
A silly question it may well be, but it is a question that brings out an important point in my discussion with Alan. Alan said that "Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God". What I understand in that is that, he is saying that the matter of morality relative to man is that it falls in the social sciences which study people and societies. On the other hand, you say "Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever."
The point with which the question is aimed to bring out to Alan is exactly what you said, that science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever.
And I don't assume that evolution and science are incompatible with belief in God. I believe in God and that His words in scriptures are true and the truth. I don't go to the world and science to validate the truth of God nor the truth of His words in scriptures. My faith is in God and His words in scriptures.
P.S. I determined to have little knowledge of science or evolution and a lot of things, except Jesus Christ.
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Environmental issues are the biggest causes of extinction. If the environment changes faster than a species can evolve, it will become extinct. There are other reasons to which a species may end up on the extinction list such as an unbalanced prey/predator scenario that may have been caused by environmental issues of it's own, or possibly even man's interjection, Lord knows we have caused considerable damage on this great planet.
comment :
I understand that there may be a lot of scientific reasons that causes extinction. Nevertheless, the point remains that, as science itself says that more than 99 percent of all species have become extinct, which refutes what you say is the purpose of evolution. And that would make a negative implication about God who you believe is the mind behind evolution.
The purpose or causes of evolution cannot circumvent sudden and/or catastrophic environmental changes, as the earth changes, species evolve. That is a fact.
The Christian scientist evolutionist believes that God is the creator, and that He created by evolution. That being then, the purpose you say of evolution should not fail for every creature created by God by evolution, for it is God who is the one creating. And when God created, He accomplished it and did not fail. In the creation, before sin entered the world, He created a lion, a lion it was, without defect, perfectly according to what He intended. And He created Adam without defect, perfectly according to what He intended.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
Comment:
Is there scientific evidence that the biological evolution of man have stopped or point towards the prediction of a stoppage? And in past ages, have man not adopted cultural evolution even then, so that since at this present age, they have ceased to evolve biologically, that now have adopted this cultural evolution? Is their stopping to biologically evolve and their adoption to evolve now culturally, was by choice and decision or was by what?
To fully understand cultural evolution, we must accept the possibility that man has taken control of his shortcomings through knowledge and subsequent sociological changes. Man is not waiting on nature to make us better and stronger.
Comment:
Man is not waiting on nature to make them better and stronger? By that then are you saying that man could have decided to disrupt the natural course of evolution and take matters in his own hands, his evolution at that? And I could just imagine where this will lead to ~ considering even what you said that man have caused considerable damage on this great planet, and the biblical revelation that man disobeyed God and was corrupted by sin, and that there is nothing good that dwells in his flesh.
Nonetheless, it seems that there is nothing presented here by science to the effect that man stopped to evolve biologically or predict such stoppage. To the contrary, in what science says, all things point to the continuance of evolution of things, including man, by implication.
Man has developed housing so we may live in climates that would be otherwise uninhabitable, we have created our own food stuffs, we have learned to travel the globe, we have learned (somewhat) how to heal the sick and injured, we have invented medicines to prolong our lives, we have created (strong possibilities) that kill people in masses, and then learned how to eradicate said diseases in populations. The list could go on and on, but these are the very things that have and will continue to disrupt man's natural and biological evolution.
And that does not at all address nor scientifically prove that man have stopped naturally evolving biologically or not.
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
Comment:
Yes, being Christians, we know and believe that. But with regards the scientific theory of evolution, the question remains not addressed, if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter in accordance to the theory of the evolution of life and of man?
Since I don't believe that any life can begin from proteins, NaCl, and a rogue electrical storm, nor do any reasonable hypothesis exist that can explain the origins of life, sans creator, I don't think the question is relevant If you're asking if a species that had it's shot and became extinct could somehow manage to re-emerge, the answer is no. Life forms are complex creatures that largely depended on their direct environment, the changes to the earth alone would prevent an extinct species from re-emerging.
There does exist something called convergent evolution, where species may have similar appearances, but they are never a direct match.
Comment:
If you don't believe otherwise than that which science tells you about how life evolved from non-living matter, what have you to say about this scientific matter which I suppose is held by the scientific community as scientific knowledge?
Now, with regards the extinction of the present evolved species of man, based on scientific data and knowledge, extinction of the present man is highly predicted. That implies to be the end of our kind, of the present human species.
Science DOES NOT tell us life began from inanimate matter, it has some suggestions but that is all. Science also does not create philosophical quotients based upon a lack of data or evidence; "if the origins of life cannot be verified via scientific testing, it does not result in the only viable answer being a creator". IOW, science will very often say, "we just don't know at this time".
That's good to hear from you that "Science DOES NOT tell us life began from inanimate matter". Though some scientists here I think says otherwise.
In your case, do you believe that science will someday scientifically prove that life began from inanimate matter or that life is a product of the evolution of non-living things?
Michael:
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
Alan:
Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.
Comment:
So, to you it seems, morality and moral conduct and consciousness is a part and product of evolution. Is morality dependent and relative then to evolution?
Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God, however, man's instinctive nature could very well have hindered any ability he had to make conscionable, empathetic, and wise decisions. Thank God for God.
Comment:
Can you explain briefly what you mean in saying that morality is part of man's social structure, even as you believe, before man were given the spirit of God? Or is not our sense of morality part of man's personal nature?
Does science find man as a creature that have evolved into a moral species?
Does it not seem reasonable to you that as man became aware of his surroundings, his like people, the seasons, etc, that he also began to show signs sociological structure? Other species display some sense of morality within their likeness, primarily other primates. Adversely, other species show extreme social structure within their types but are completely devoid of any sense of morality.
4WD is correct, man's sense of morality is not scientifically quantitative, it is more likely a psychosocial/historical/philosophical study.
Oh, so you believe that aside from man, other primates are moral creatures? How have you known that?
What I understood in what you said about morality, is that it falls in the social sciences which study people and societies. That is still science. While 4WD says on the other hand is that "Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever."
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 02:26:06
A silly question it may well be, but it is a question that brings out an important point in my discussion with Alan. Alan said that "Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God". What I understand in that is that, he is saying that the matter of morality relative to man is that it falls in the social sciences which study people and societies. On the other hand, you say "Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever."
The point with which the question is aimed to bring out to Alan is exactly what you said, that science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever.
And I don't assume that evolution and science are incompatible with belief in God. I believe in God and that His words in scriptures are true and the truth. I don't go to the world and science to validate the truth of God nor the truth of His words in scriptures. My faith is in God and His words in scriptures.
P.S. I determined to have little knowledge of science or evolution and a lot of things, except Jesus Christ.
First, with respect to your P.S. statement, you have demonstrated quite well that you have, as you determined to have, little knowledge of science or evolution. So why do you insist on trying to carry on a combative conversation about something you have so little knowledge of? Clearly to be involved in a conversation about either requires the knowledge that you admit that you do not have. That is foolish in the extreme.
Second, with respect to the question of morality, many societies express a morality quite apart from any knowledge of God's word. Such morality is subjective and subject to change as the society changes, either advancing or regressing. The Judaeo-Christian morality is considered, by us at least, to be objective since it is based upon God's word and not subject to change except by God's command.
And finally, science and evolution are not the only areas wherein you apparently have decided to remain unmindful. I repeat, you should learn to use singular verbs with singular subjects and plural verbs with plural subjects. Your apparent lack of knowledge of basic English grammar doesn't help your arguments. And it can't help your understanding of God's word, that you say you believe in.
There does indeed exist morality in the animal world, perhaps only a few species exhibit what we humans would describe as a sense of morality, most often recognized when animals display human like emotions.
A well known neighborhood cat; Marla, managed to climb against all odds and steal the Blue Jays eggs. Those Blue Jays stalked Marla for a week straight while she kept hidden under the cedars, each time she would make an appearance the Blue Jays would dive bomb her and actually inflict pain. I know, just some peeved off birds.
https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/do-animals-have-morals-and-show-empathy-9940632.html
https://www.livescience.com/24800-animals-emotions-morality.html
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals
: Alan Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 06:19:37
There does indeed exist morality in the animal world, perhaps only a few species exhibit what we humans would describe as a sense of morality, most often recognized when animals display human like emotions.
Any cat or dog owner , who truly cares about their pets, will know the animals have emotions.
Over the years we have had a dog go into morning over the loss of their 4 legged companion , complete with tears.
We have had more then one dog who has actually been embarrased if it did something funny and we laugh at them...
I could go on, but wont bore you.
Animals have feelings of happiness, sadness, and embarrassment for sure
: 4WD Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 04:55:18
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 02:26:06
A silly question it may well be, but it is a question that brings out an important point in my discussion with Alan. Alan said that "Morality is part of our social structure, we were social creatures before we were given the spirit of God". What I understand in that is that, he is saying that the matter of morality relative to man is that it falls in the social sciences which study people and societies. On the other hand, you say "Science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever."
The point with which the question is aimed to bring out to Alan is exactly what you said, that science does not and can not deal with morality in any sense whatsoever.
And I don't assume that evolution and science are incompatible with belief in God. I believe in God and that His words in scriptures are true and the truth. I don't go to the world and science to validate the truth of God nor the truth of His words in scriptures. My faith is in God and His words in scriptures.
P.S. I determined to have little knowledge of science or evolution and a lot of things, except Jesus Christ.
First, with respect to your P.S. statement, you have demonstrated quite well that you have, as you determined to have, little knowledge of science or evolution. So why do you insist on trying to carry on a combative conversation about something you have so little knowledge of? Clearly to be involved in a conversation about either requires the knowledge that you admit that you do not have. That is foolish in the extreme.
Second, with respect to the question of morality, many societies express a morality quite apart from any knowledge of God's word. Such morality is subjective and subject to change as the society changes, either advancing or regressing. The Judaeo-Christian morality is considered, by us at least, to be objective since it is based upon God's word and not subject to change except by God's command.
First, with regards your comment on the PS, you asked "So why do you insist on trying to carry on a combative conversation about something you have so little knowledge of? " It does not take one to be a scientist nor be as wise as you may believe you are, to understand what scientist preach here about how man came into being. In the same way that it is necessary for one to be a theologian nor as wise as you may believe you are, to know the spiritual things of God in scriptures.
I have to ask you, the wise, to consider what scriptures says of God:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But
God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were
not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5
that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Second, with respect to the question of morality, you said that many societies express a morality quite apart from any knowledge of God's word. And what morality is that? What is morality that which does not involve God?
I have to ask you to consider these scriptures as to why Adam & Eve, from formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to covering their nakedness. And it's not because of evolution which scientists may say:
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
I would like to chime in on this thread, but not with long-winded, complicated posts or replies and hopefully just ONE subject per post if possible.
Could someone here who believes in evolution please give me ONE ( not a list, please, lets stick to one subject at a time and lets keep it simple ) evidence or proof or reason WHY you believe in evolution.
Thank you.
: KiwiChristian Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 14:37:29
I would like to chime in on this thread, but not with long-winded, complicated posts or replies and hopefully just ONE subject per post if possible.
Could someone here who believes in evolution please give me ONE ( not a list, please, lets stick to one subject at a time and lets keep it simple ) evidence or proof or reason WHY you believe in evolution.
Thank you.
Reasons why I believe? Studies have been conclusive that evolution has been occurring, and continues to occur since the first life forms were present on earth. Changes in text over the years have supported the fundamentals of evolution rather than upend the theory and toss it into the hypothetical waste bin. Evolution is considered
fact by a staggeringly high percentage of accredited scientists, the data is overwhelmingly positive, one just needs to take some time to study evolution objectively to understand it's place and function in this world.
Aside from that, no other reasonable explanations exist other than those fueled by a passion (primarily religion) to dismiss the facts.
This is basic, but a good starting point. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
If they consider it fact, I am personally revoking their science card. Healthy skepticism and the ability to re-evaluate is a must.
They aren't scientists, they are members of a religion.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 16:03:02
If they consider it fact, I am personally revoking their science card. Healthy skepticism and the ability to re-evaluate is a must.
They aren't scientists, they are members of a religion.
Re-evaluation is an on going process, but as I've said before, it's never going to be "we were completely wrong about everything we have said", it's more along the lines of "further research has shown that we can add to our previous theories....." .
As far as fact is concerned, when enough data is confirmed by enough researchers, it will be considered fact.
: Alan Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 18:37:35
Re-evaluation is an on going process, but as I've said before, it's never going to be "we were completely wrong about everything we have said", it's more along the lines of "further research has shown that we can add to our previous theories....." .
As far as fact is concerned, when enough data is confirmed by enough researchers, it will be considered fact.
It will never be fact. Scientifically, the theory of evolution will never be proven or considered fact. Perhaps the theories will get stronger, but that is another matter.
: Alan Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 06:19:37
There does indeed exist morality in the animal world, perhaps only a few species exhibit what we humans would describe as a sense of morality, most often recognized when animals display human like emotions.
A well known neighborhood cat; Marla, managed to climb against all odds and steal the Blue Jays eggs. Those Blue Jays stalked Marla for a week straight while she kept hidden under the cedars, each time she would make an appearance the Blue Jays would dive bomb her and actually inflict pain. I know, just some peeved off birds.
https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/do-animals-have-morals-and-show-empathy-9940632.html
https://www.livescience.com/24800-animals-emotions-morality.html
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals
Animals having emotions is not conclusive at all nor is evidence that they are moral beings.
If you believe any of that as some sense of morality, what morality is that? And if animals have a sense or knowledge of what is good and bad, no matter how little science would suggest that to be, then they also can choose to do what is good or what is bad just like us. Perhaps then they sin too? And that would also imply that they too have a free will. The difference then between them and us, besides our biological makeup, is just that we are more intelligent than them.
I have to ask you to consider these scriptures as to why Adam & Eve, from formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to covering their nakedness. And it's not because of evolution which scientists may say.
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 19:37:53
It will never be fact. Scientifically, the theory of evolution will never be proven or considered fact. Perhaps the theories will get stronger, but that is another matter.
I agree. As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God, from whom ALL things came to be. And since these theories will never be proven, evolution remains to be a make believe. The theory of evolution may well convince and satisfy the scientists, of whatever purpose they have in their desire of the knowledge of the workings of nature, even the origins of things and life, and perhaps even the ultimate end and goal of all things and mankind. With the reality that science fails to provide these knowledge, people should be lead to the reality and truth of the Creator, that is, God. I wonder if there is any case where a scientist, because of his study of science, was lead to repentance and came to believe and have faith in God. If there is, that's good news. What I hear is that, a theist, even a Christian, who immerse himself/herself deep into science, more often than not, becomes an atheist. Too sad and alarming.
Also, if scientists claim of being into science for the purpose of making the world a better place to live in, and for the good and preservation of humanity, what good is there in that when the humanity we are talking about is of a corrupt and sinful nature and state of being? The very humanity that is under the reign of death and a slave to sin? Besides, I'm pretty much sure that science, scientific knowledge, and scientists will fail to achieve these goals. Only when all mankind repents of this pride and return to the knowledge of God, and have faith in God, depend on Him, believing His revelations in scriptures, and live according to His will, will these goals be realized and achieved. But this we know, according to scriptures, will not and is not what will happen. And so we understand why Jesus said that man must be born again. God in scriptures speaks of a new birth, a new man, a new heaven, a new earth, in other words, a new creation.
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 22:06:41I agree. As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God, from whom ALL things came to be. And since these theories will never be proven, evolution remains to be a make believe.
By that argument, since the existence of God can never be proven, then God remains to be a make believe. That is all rather silly.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 19:37:53
It will never be fact. Scientifically, the theory of evolution will never be proven or considered fact. Perhaps the theories will get stronger, but that is another matter.
Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 07:59:07
Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".
And that is why many learning institutions are ridiculous. They obviously don't teach the scientific method or probably understand it. It cannot be proven. Any specific experiment or test to prove it cannot be done. It should not be considered fact.
Huge difference between this is a strong theory with lots of evidence to support it, and calling it fact.
One of the fundamental classes I had to take for my degree was "Electromagnetic Theory." This theory postulates many things about how electricity operates. Many things about this theory cannot be proven, but there are many uses of this theory that everyone takes advantage of. In spite of more evidence, and more functional use of this theory than evolution, we do not see scientists and engineers call this "Electromagnetic Fact."
There is a difference. And once again, any scientist that refers to evolution as a fact is an idiot.
"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!"....You have just witnessed perfection.
: Texas Conservative Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 08:23:33
And that is why many learning institutions are ridiculous. They obviously don't teach the scientific method or probably understand it. It cannot be proven. Any specific experiment or test to prove it cannot be done. It should not be considered fact.
Huge difference between this is a strong theory with lots of evidence to support it, and calling it fact.
But the scientific method has been applied through some key elements of the definition; fossil records, laboratory observation involving isolation, and geographical study of species.
Good bit of information here; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85957-does-evolution-follow-the-scientific-method-if-so-how/
Paper directly observing "speciation" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Of course, evolution is one of the more difficult scientific theories to prove via the scientific method, but time will certainly put the controversy to end. The things that are being relayed as "fact" today and dismissed by religious groups will most definitely become indisputable evidence as science advances, and more testing is verified.
: Texas Conservative Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 08:27:33
One of the fundamental classes I had to take for my degree was "Electromagnetic Theory." This theory postulates many things about how electricity operates. Many things about this theory cannot be proven, but there are many uses of this theory that everyone takes advantage of. In spite of more evidence, and more functional use of this theory than evolution, we do not see scientists and engineers call this "Electromagnetic Fact."
There is a difference. And once again, any scientist that refers to evolution as a fact is an idiot.
That is actually the situation with virtually any theory, law, hypothesis or whatever. Such do not constitute facts. But a given result that is observed concerning or resulting from that electromagnetic theory is fact whether or not we can explain precisely from the theory how it happened. A fact is, by definition, something that has happened. A theory is not a fact; facts are used to substantiate the theory.
Most of the things talked about in the speciation article are what I would consider micro evolution, which most certainly exists. If the science community continues to make smaller the distinctions of species, then they can ostensibly claim that macro evolution has occurred. I would contend that differences in the human species from individuals to ethnic groups would constitute speciation if the same guidelines were applied. A flower that changes it's characteristics due to environment is a micro evolution. A moth that changes its color because of an environment change is a micro evolution. A group of lizards developing larger feet due to their environment is a micro evolution. Small changes within a species constituting a subspecies is micro evolution. No one is disputing micro evolution.
Micro evolution is a testable fact. Macro evolution requires projecting a theory, not a testable repeatable fact. Or by changing the definitions of a species.
Creation Scientist DO use facts to substantiate their theory probably not to the satisfaction of macro evolutionist, but being a theory it also is like macro evolution, not a testable reproducible fact as a whole.
How many "microevolutions" would it take to end up with a macroevolution?
: 4WD Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 09:37:38
How many "microevolutions" would it take to end up with a macroevolution?
I don't know. How many species categories would have to be gerrymandered to qualify microevolution(s) into a macro evolution.
If the human species were categorized by the same methods as the regional micro evolutions in the plant and animal world, how many species of people would we have today?
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 09:14:16
But the scientific method has been applied through some key elements of the definition; fossil records, laboratory observation involving isolation, and geographical study of species.
Good bit of information here; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85957-does-evolution-follow-the-scientific-method-if-so-how/
Paper directly observing "speciation" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Of course, evolution is one of the more difficult scientific theories to prove via the scientific method, but time will certainly put the controversy to end. The things that are being relayed as "fact" today and dismissed by religious groups will most definitely become indisputable evidence as science advances, and more testing is verified.
Time and repeatability are one of the reasons the theory will never be proven.
"Never" is a big word, a word seldom used in the scientific world.
Until then.........still a theory not a fact.
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 10:01:47
"Never" is a big word, a word seldom used in the scientific world.
Never is a big word, but apt in the case of dating methodologies. Apart from an invention of a time machine, it is true.
: Jaime Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 10:15:10
Until then.........still a theory not a fact.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."I feel like this thread continues to go in circles. there is no reasonable alternative to evolution in the scientific community and until one exists, I'll stick with accredited scientific documentation.
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 10:46:09
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
I feel like this thread continues to go in circles. there is no reasonable alternative to evolution in the scientific community and until one exists, I'll stick with accredited scientific documentation.
Just don't call it fact. There is a difference between a theory with strong evidence and a fact.
I have no issue with pointing out that there is no good evidence in the scientific community for the biblical account. I have an issue with calling theories facts. Even theories with a lot of evidence and scientific credibility.
: Texas Conservative Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 10:53:03
Just don't call it fact. There is a difference between a theory with strong evidence and a fact.
I have no issue with pointing out that there is no good evidence in the scientific community for the biblical account. I have an issue with calling theories facts. Even theories with a lot of evidence and scientific credibility.
Fair enough, there are enough scientists that will agree with you on the use of the term "facts".
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 07:59:07
Quote from: Texas Conservative on Yesterday at 19:37:53
It will never be fact. Scientifically, the theory of evolution will never be proven or considered fact. Perhaps the theories will get stronger, but that is another matter.
Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".
When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?
: 4WD Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 04:55:07
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 22:06:41
I agree. As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God, from whom ALL things came to be. And since these theories will never be proven, evolution remains to be a make believe.
By that argument, since the existence of God can never be proven, then God remains to be a make believe. That is all rather silly.
Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?
Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 14:53:25Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?
Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.
Nothing we know about proves the existence of God. The existence of God can't be proven. It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith. Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 14:34:20
Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".
When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?
Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle rofl
Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.
: 4WD Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 15:27:42
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 14:53:25
Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?
Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.
Nothing we know about proves the existence of God. The existence of God can't be proven. It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith. Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?
Well, we certainly differ in our experience and understanding of God then, and of His words in scriptures.
Romans 1:18 For the
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because
what may be known of God is manifest in them, for
God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse,
How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true. Do you you not see the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man? Do you not clearly see the invisible attributes of God in the things that are made ~ sun, moon, stars, mountains, seas, people, animals, plants, water, earth, wind, fire, rain, etc.? No man is with excuse on this matter.
You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."
Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.
I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 19:03:51
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 14:34:20
When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?
Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle rofl
Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.
So, you are saying that facts are truths. In that case then, you take scientific facts as truths and so will never be proven false. You take science then to be a method of acquiring knowledge of truths, at least with regards the physical things ~ nature.
On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?
Another thing, you said " in pretty much every learning institution.", and "there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation". It seems to me that somehow, you take numbers as a basis for determining something to be true. On that basis then, where those in favor are of much greater than those who are not, of the view that the Bible is not true or that Jesus is not the Son of God, what would that make of the Bible and Jesus Christ? And would that then not make the former view to be the truth?
How about scientific theories, do you say they are truth?
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 19:25:18
Nothing we know about proves the existence of God. The existence of God can't be proven. It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith. Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?
Well, we certainly differ in our experience and understanding of God then, and of His words in scriptures.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true. Do you you not see the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man? Do you not clearly see the invisible attributes of God in the things that are made ~ sun, moon, stars, mountains, seas, people, animals, plants, water, earth, wind, fire, rain, etc.? No man is with excuse on this matter.
You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."
Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.
I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.
I agree with 4WD here, if I was to prepare a thesis attempting to show proof of God's existence outside of my biblical faith, I'd likely fall flat on my face. There is little evidence that can be substantiated in terms of tangible evidence. My faith alone allows me to look at nature in awe of God's creation.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 20:01:21
Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle rofl
Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.
So, you are saying that facts are truths. In that case then, you take scientific facts as truths and so will never be proven false. You take science then to be a method of acquiring knowledge of truths, at least with regards the physical things ~ nature.
On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?
Another thing, you said " in pretty much every learning institution.", and "there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation". It seems to me that somehow, you take numbers as a basis for determining something to be true. On that basis then, where those in favor are of much greater than those who are not, of the view that the Bible is not true or that Jesus is not the Son of God, what would that make of the Bible and Jesus Christ? And would that then not make the former view to be the truth?
How about scientific theories, do you say they are truth?
Facts, scientific or otherwise are truth until proven otherwise. The onus is not upon the relayer of facts, but to those that oppose the facts.
Yes I equivalate evolutionary facts as truth.
In regards to the lopsided views supporting evolution vs the low percentage of Christian believers, it is all about faith. I know some will insist that it requires the same degree of faith to adopt scientific theory, but that just isn't true. The data is there for anyone to study, it may require some amount of faith to fully accept that which is beyond our comprehension but the data is there nonetheless, verified, validated, and presented as scientific theory. The Bible however, I have complete faith in God as creator and Jesus, Son of God. It requires my faith, and all my faith to continue onward. Two completely different truths, and two completely different paths to those truths.
Yes scientific theories are truths, see reply 1257 for the definition of scientific theory.
Another supposed fact of evolution proved wrong.
https://crev.info/2014/04/malthus-misled-darwin-who-misled-the-world/
April 30, 2014 | David F. Coppedge
Malthus Misled Darwin Who Misled the World
There's no evidence for a key presumption of Darwinian theory – the very presumption that gave birth to Social Darwinism.
It's rare to see a science article say "Darwin was wrong," but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.
One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
Results on algae at the University of Michigan were "unsetting" and "completely unexpected," the article says. The researchers got self-inflicted headaches over their findings:
"It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?"
The researchers did not set out to disprove Darwin, but were "completely baffled" to find that closely related algae did not compete more strongly. "The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying."
Darwin's flawed notion has had far-reaching effects on politics, the article points out. Decisions about what endangered species to save have been made on the basis that closely-related species are less valuable then distant ones.
But if scientists ultimately prove Darwin wrong on a larger scale, "then we need to stop using his hypothesis as a basis for conservation decisions," Cardinale says. "We risk conserving things that are the least important, and losing things that are the most important."
Regarding Darwin's hypothesis that distant species complete less, the team "didn't see any evidence of that at all" in "field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America." In hindsight, they believe Darwin misled himself by his own preferred view of nature. They could only offer "maybe" stories in the wake of the damage.
Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
"Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong."
This statement suggests that it's not just a subtopic within Darwinian theory that is wrong, but the most important underlying presumption. It also implies that Thomas Malthus's ideas on competition were wrong.* Competition for limited resources, he said, led to death of the unfit. Evolutionary theorists like Herbert Spencer, therefore, misled whole nations who launched "social Darwinist" economic policies based on this idea that profoundly affected the lives of millions of people. Historians can only imagine what would have happened if they had promoted the newer view that nature becomes productive by cooperation, not competition.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.
Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.
Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."
Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.
A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment. Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988 that continues today. It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations. I have simplified a report by Scott Whynot, who studied 26 peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski (with others) published between 1991 and 2012. These papers represent the major genetic findings from 21 years of the experiment.
1. There was an insertion mutation that inhibited transcription of DNA involved in cell wall synthesis.
2. There was an insertion mutation in a regulatory region that encodes two proteins involved with cell wall synthesis. This may have led to larger cells.
3. A mutation in a gene led to a defect in DNA repair.
4. An insertion mutation may have knocked out a gene involved in programmed cell death and response to stress.
5. There was another mutation in a gene involved in response to stress, disrupting its function.
6. There was a mutation in the gene that encodes an enzyme that loosens DNA coils, leading to an increase in DNA supercoiling.
7. There was an insertion mutation in a gene that represses the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a molecule that participates in many metabolic reactions, some affecting longevity. This might allow more NAD production.
8. The researchers noted an insertion mutation that they think inactivated a gene, resulting in greater glucose uptake. Glucose is a limited energy source in the experiment.
9. Deletion mutations caused the loss of the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that is not available in the experiment.
10. There was a mutation in a gene regulating transport of the sugar maltose, an energy source that is not present in the experiment.
11. After about 30,000 generations, the E. coli in one of the twelve isolated populations began to utilize an energy source, citrate, that they normally could not use in the presence of oxygen. E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate where there is no oxygen, but they do not produce an appropriate transport protein for an environment with oxygen. In E. coli DNA, the gene for the citrate transporter that works without oxygen is directly upstream from genes for proteins with promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen. A replication of the region happened to put the transporter gene next to one of these promoters, so it could now be expressed in the presence of oxygen.
Except for number 11, the changes found in over 60,000 generations of bacteria were due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information. Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 14:34:20
Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".
When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?
A fact is something that is (or was) seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, or measured. A truth is something that is known such as "Love is a virtue."
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 19:25:18How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true.
When we say that something is proven, we mean objectively so. Using the Bible as evidence is not objective proof. I believe in the Bible, but that is an act of faith. Thus the things I believe in using the Bible as my source are not true due to objective proofs. Objectively, God can neither be proven nor disproven. However, there are still good arguments that suggest there may be a God, arguments well worth thinking about.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 20:01:21
On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?
When it comes to evolution:
1. It is considered fact that life evolved from a single life form to the variety of life that we have today -- this is beyond debate, and will not change.
2. What is considered theoretical is the process which drives that evolution, whether it is natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift, God, or some combination...
As to truth, as I stated earlier, truth is those things which are knowledge beyond what can be sensed -- more like what can be intuited. What is taught in the creation myth of Genesis 1 is truth: God created everything in the world and it is good. This is what is important about myth: although it is not factual, it is the most powerful form of teaching TRUTH.
: Michael2012 Tue Dec 05, 2017 - 02:39:34
Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
Why would any animal want to reproduce? It means more mouths to feed and is a drain on the natural resources.
comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Can anyone say that any species is extinct? Just cause no one sees them, does mean they no longer exist? Do we know every inch of this planet?
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
But the environment is changing, why aren't humans?
Also, how far back in your family tree do you need to go before one of your ancestors is non-human?
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Has there been any EVIDENCE that life came from non-life?
Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 19:25:18You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."
Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.
I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.
No, it is God that is needed by fallen man. Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence. He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science. Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.
Michael: Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.
1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
Alan: To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.
Why would any animal want to reproduce? It means more mouths to feed and is a drain on the natural resources.
Instinct, it's the natural course of life to populate a given species, not a conscious effort.comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.
Can anyone say that any species is extinct? Just cause no one sees them, does mean they no longer exist? Do we know every inch of this planet?
To date, 700 species of dinosaurs are known. They are all extinct and that is just a very small example.
Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
Alan:Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.
But the environment is changing, why aren't humans?
Also, how far back in your family tree do you need to go before one of your ancestors is non-human?
The process of evolution requires much more time than can be seen as dramatic changes within a species, but there is evidence that humans have continued to evolve over the past 10,000 years. http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving (http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving)
Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
Has there been any EVIDENCE that life came from non-life?
Nope, none whatsoever, but it seems that some, even a few on this forum have subscribed to the possibility that earth was given life from another planet. That is not my belief, just throwing it out there. Alan:All life has a creator, that creator is God.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 05:39:12
No, it is God that is needed by fallen man. Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence. He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science. Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.The proof is there according to the apostle Paul, enough proof to leave those who deny it, without excuse. You simply deny this, as you deny other scripture that does not fit the faith you have chosen. Evolutionists are just the modern version of those who considering themselves wise, have become fools. Some still bow down to images of man, birds, four footed beasts, and creeping things because of such. Others now claim we came from all these various critters through the process of evolution, instead of a direct creation from God as plainly described in other scriptures denied by those thinking themselves to wise to believe the word of God. Both deny the word of God, and both will be without excuse before God.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,................................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
You obviously have no idea about what it means to "prove" anything. You present evidence, not proof. Evidence is not proof. Evidence can tend to indicate proof, but they are not the same.
https://www.rae.org/essay-links/cormicroev/
A Mistaken Case of Macroevolution
Author: Stephen Caesar
Subject: Biology
Date: 2/26/2004
When evolutionists see two related species in the fossil record, one in an earlier geological layer and one in a later (i.e., higher) layer, they assume that the creature in the earlier (lower) layer was the evolutionary ancestor of the one in the higher, more recent layer. This they consider to be macroevolution: the lower species improved over time, grew stronger, became more fit to handle its environment, and eventually became the brand-new, more highly developed species that left its remains in the higher layer.
Ordinary corn on the cob has shown this to be false reasoning. Corn (maize) originated in what is now Mexico and spread outward from there. The plant from which modern corn was domesticated is called teosinte, which is native to the region. Archaeologists have found well-preserved teosinte ears at various sites in Mexico from around 4300 BC (Jaenicke-Després et al. 2003: 1206). It is much, much smaller than modern corn, and is very different in appearance. Because of this, evolutionists assumed that teosinte was a species that, over time, macroevolved into a bigger, larger, brand-new species, modern maize.
Genetic studies, however, have proved that teosinte and modern maize are the same species. For one thing, they can interbreed, which shouldn't happen if they're two different species. Moreover, this interbreeding occurs in the wild, not in human-controled conditions. The result of the teosinte-corn hybrid looks so different from both parents that evolutionists originally considered it a separate species, naming it Zea canina. In the 1920's, a scientist named Dr. George A. Beadle examined the chromosomes of this hybrid and discovered that teosinte and corn were the same species after all. They even shared the same chromosomal order of genes (Fedoroff 2003: 1158).
More recent studies have shown that only a few genetic mutations changed teosinte into maize. It turns out that the differences between maize and teosinte exist in only 5 genomic regions. In 2 of these regions, the differences are due to alternative alleles of just one gene. This allele affected kernal structure and plant architecture (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). (Alleles are merely different forms of the same gene.)
Thus, the differences between teosinte and maize are not the result of teosinte evolving into maize over time. They are both different forms of the same species (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). Modern maize is much, much larger than teosinte, so this is an example of changes within the bounds of species that have improved the species. But there is always what is known as a "fitness cost" whenever a species microevolves: as discussed often in this column, fitness cost is when a species microevolves a new trait to increase its ability to deal with new conditions in its environment, but the improvement is counterbalanced by a sudden disadvantage in another area.
For the mighty modern maize, this disadvantage is fatal: modern corn can't breed without human involvement (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). In other words, if the large, hearty maize plants were left on their own, they would soon die out, and humble teosinte would once again rule the day. This isn't what Darwin had envisioned; in his theory, modern maize would triumph without human help, and the weaker teosinte would die out.
Moreover, this microevolution from teosinte to modern maize was rapid (as opposed to the millions of years postulated by Darwinism). Genetic studies showed that the transition from teosinte to maize occurred rapidly and in one spot, and it took only 10 generations. Nina Fedoroff of Pennsylvania State University reported: "The results are unequivocal: All contemporary maize varieties belong to a single family, pointing to a single domestication event" (2003: 1158). Thus falls another "proof" of Darwinism.
References:
Fedoroff, N.V. 2003. "Prehistoric GM Corn." Science 302, no. 5648.
Jaenicke-Després, V., et al. 2003. "Early Allelic Selection in Maize as Revealed by Ancient DNA." Science 302, no. 5648.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 07:20:03
You obviously have no idea about what it means to "prove" anything.
Of course not, you said so didn't you.
: Amo Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 07:22:18
Of course not, you said so didn't you.
Mostly, you demonstrate it.
https://www.rae.org/essay-links/bits25/
Darwinism and Secular Humanism
The experts in evolutionary theory are all either atheists or agnostics. However, they know they're in the minority and that only about 10% of 'ordinary citizens' really believe that life began by accidental chemical reactions — that it gradually became more and more complex without any supernatural intervention. Almost half of our population say they believe that God somehow created us (although many deviate considerably from the Biblical account). Thus evolutionists are careful to disguise the religious implications of their 'religion.'
Thomas Dewey was the long-time head of the department of education at Columbia University. Since Columbia was very influential among teachers' colleges, Dewey's beliefs and philosophies were adopted by most of those colleges, and in turn by the students who later became teachers. Thus he became known as one of the "fathers of American education."
Dewey was a philosopher, and a popular speaker at forums across the U.S. His fundamental premise was the absence of moral and philosophical absolutes — that we are each the authors of our own standards. We have him to thank for the concept of "moral relativism," so popular in society today. Of course this means that there's no such thing as Godly principles that hold absolute truth. He considered Christianity to be simply a human philosophy, which he rejected.
In 1933 Dewey led a group of prominent intellectuals in publishing the Humanist Manifesto, which the Encyclopedia Brittanica describes as "substantially a profession of anthropological atheism, based on the theory of evolution." Its supporters thereafter became known, quite reasonably, as "secular humanists," and later began a magazine known as "The Humanist." Many leaders in the ACLU (or American Civil Liberties Union), a legal group active in filing lawsuits to "cleanse" our nation of all vestiges of religion in the public domain, belong to the Humanist Society.
The public school system is being used as the ideal vehicle for spreading this atheistic belief system. John Dunphy wrote (in The Humanist, Jan/Feb 1983):
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith, a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." (emphasis added)
But most public school teachers are dedicated and earnest people — they don't "perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith," as Dunphy wrote above. Many of them are faithful Christians, who have been indoctrinated in college by those who insist that "science has proved that ..." or "... the fact of evolution ...". Their curriculum is often set by others, such as State Board of Education Guidelines, that require certain subjects to be taught.
However, many of these perceptive teachers are bothered by the obvious conflicts between what they're expected to teach and the clear statements in the Bible. Each of these must rationalize the conflicts in their own way. This writer faced these conflicts in the past, and was never able to find a compromise position that made good sense. That was what made me begin a long study of the foundations of the scientific process. I was led to reject evolutionism and to become a dedicated creationist.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 07:25:59
Mostly, you demonstrate it.
Of course I do, just as you claim God demonstrated extremely long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis. Your such a good judge of these sort of things.
: Amo Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 07:46:09Of course I do, just as you claim God demonstrated extremely long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis. Your such a good judge of these sort of things.
I made no such claim about God demonstrating long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis.
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 19:03:51
Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle rofl
Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.
I find the Bible pretty reasonable...but then again man does not want God, so he invents evolution.
: AVZ Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 08:20:48I find the Bible pretty reasonable...but then again man does not want God, so he invents evolution.
You are accusing Alan of not wanting God? Perhaps you should reconsider the implication of what you just said there.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 05:39:12-
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 19:25:18
You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."
Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.
I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.
No, it is God that is needed by fallen man. Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence. He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science. Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.
4WD:
He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.Clearly you don't believe what Paul was inspired by God to write in Romans 1:18-20. No wonder why you evade discussing anything about the passage.
If God has given ALL evidence needed in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, it follows clearly that He exist. For these evidences you say, are given by God. And for these evidences to be given, God must exist. These evidences establishes the truth of His existence. But with regards science, you speak of evidences, and have no problem taking such evidences as proofs of this and that.
Of course, there is nothing more to say in defense of your position but to say "you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is".
Science evidently had missed the mark over and over, time and time again, throughout its history, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge. That is the sad truth for the scientist atheist, being of this world, the worldly man. On the other hand, the Christian is not of this world.
Science engages the sight.
Now, the Christian walk by faith, not by sight.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 08:22:41
You are accusing Alan of not wanting God? Perhaps you should reconsider the implication of what you just said there.
It's okay, just the typical ignorance that can be expected from those that lack understanding and rather than learn, inject ad nauseum.
Alan:
Facts, scientific or otherwise are truth until proven otherwise. The onus is not upon the relayer of facts, but to those that oppose the facts.
Comment:
And if facts or truth are later proven otherwise, the earlier ones becomes not facts and false. And that means, until they were proven false, they were lies taken to be truths.
Alan:
Yes I equivalate evolutionary facts as truth.
In regards to the lopsided views supporting evolution vs the low percentage of Christian believers, it is all about faith. I know some will insist that it requires the same degree of faith to adopt scientific theory, but that just isn't true. The data is there for anyone to study, it may require some amount of faith to fully accept that which is beyond our comprehension but the data is there nonetheless, verified, validated, and presented as scientific theory. The Bible however, I have complete faith in God as creator and Jesus, Son of God. It requires my faith, and all my faith to continue onward. Two completely different truths, and two completely different paths to those truths.
Comment;
The point being is that, numbers cannot be a basis for determining something to be true or false.
Alan:
Yes scientific theories are truths, see reply 1257 for the definition of scientific theory.
Comment:
And there are several theories scientists make with regards one subject matter. This would mean that there are several truths about one thing. And only one must be the correct theory. The rest of the theories then are false truths, if there be such things as false truths. Further, there were theories in times past that were later proven false and replaced by other newer theories. That being, tells us that those theories that have been replaced aren't all along truths, but are lies taken to be truths at the time. IOW, man have been deceived in believing those theories as truths when they really are lies.
Really getting tired of this merry-go-round, you refuse to look at the conversation objectively and continue to revert back to the position of the claims by science could possibly be dead wrong. If you took a moment to try and understand what scientific theory is, you would know that it isn't infallible, but on the other hand, it also isn't something that will be turned 180 degrees. New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory.
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 11:37:57
Really getting tired of this merry-go-round, you refuse to look at the conversation objectively and continue to revert back to the position of the claims by science could possibly be dead wrong. If you took a moment to try and understand what scientific theory is, you would know that it isn't infallible, but on the other hand, it also isn't something that will be turned 180 degrees. New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory.
I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth. Like sin, small or big, is still sin. So, whether how small or great a falseness is in a scientific theory, the theory still is false. And what is false can never be taken to be truth. Moreover, what is partly false and partly truth, is as a whole, is false.
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 13:08:53I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth.
The irony here is that statement is simply not true.
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 13:08:53
I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth. Like sin, small or big, is still sin. So, whether how small or great a falseness is in a scientific theory, the theory still is false. And what is false can never be taken to be truth. Moreover, what is partly false and partly truth, is as a whole, is false.
Yeah, I get your point. If current scientific theory is fallible, you are free to insert the 10,000 year old YE universe concept. ::sarcasm::
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 11:37:57
New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory.
Is that statement yet another theory? Its dumb.
If you hold to a theory and new data shows your theory is wrong, then your old theory is annihilated and replaced by a new one.
Your old theory no longer exists.
: Alan Fri Dec 08, 2017 - 10:46:09
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
But its NOT "well-substantiated" at all. no-one has yet given me just ONE piece of EVIDENCE for evolution.
I feel like this thread continues to go in circles. there is no reasonable alternative to evolution in the scientific community and until one exists, I'll stick with accredited scientific documentation.
There is a VERY reasonable alternative to evolution in the scientific community.
In the beginning, God...
That is, if we are talking about REAL "science" and not just guesses, assumptions, etc.
the SCIENTIFIC evidences all point to a young earth created around 7,000 years ago, btw.
: Alan Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 15:05:14
Reasons why I believe?
No. You obviously did not read my post.
I said provide ONE piece of evidence, which you have not done.
This is basic, but a good starting point. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
Really? Are we just going to throw weblinks back and forth? That will get us nowhere.
Lets have a CONVERSATION. A DIALOG.
Please give me ONE evidence or proof for evolution and lets discuss it kindly and in a friendly manner.
: 4WD Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 08:22:41
You are accusing Alan of not wanting God? Perhaps you should reconsider the implication of what you just said there.
Yes that's exactly what I am saying.
The evolution theory is an anti-Christian theory, devised by Satan to lead people away from God.
It is a false religion as much as Islam and Buddhism are.
The truth of this can be found in Alan's own statement:
"the truth here is relative to the present day data"Truth has never been relative to present day data, or data from whatever generation. Truth can only be found with God and His Word.
Alan also states:
"there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation"And he is absolutely correct. There also is a staggering percentage of the population who do not believe in God, so the scientific explanation is right in line with the percentage of God abandonment.
This is not something new, scripture predicts it. People will leave God and follow their own wisdom.
Finally Alan states:
"since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase."Alan admits that scripture does not offer us a reasonable explanation, so he effectively dismisses Gods Word.
The evolution theory and present day scientific data are unable to bring people to God, they lead people away from God.
And if a theory leads people away from God then it is a false theory.
: AVZ Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 21:26:12
Is that statement yet another theory? Its dumb.
If you hold to a theory and new data shows your theory is wrong, then your old theory is annihilated and replaced by a new one.
Your old theory no longer exists.
::doh:: You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, none whatsoever.
: AVZ Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 21:47:59
Yes that's exactly what I am saying.
The evolution theory is an anti-Christian theory, devised by Satan to lead people away from God.
It is a false religion as much as Islam and Buddhism are.
The truth of this can be found in Alan's own statement: "the truth here is relative to the present day data"
Truth has never been relative to present day data, or data from whatever generation. Truth can only be found with God and His Word.
Alan also states: "there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation"
And he is absolutely correct. There also is a staggering percentage of the population who do not believe in God, so the scientific explanation is right in line with the percentage of God abandonment.
This is not something new, scripture predicts it. People will leave God and follow their own wisdom.
Finally Alan states: "since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase."
Alan admits that scripture does not offer us a reasonable explanation, so he effectively dismisses Gods Word.
The evolution theory and present day scientific data are unable to bring people to God, they lead people away from God.
And if a theory leads people away from God then it is a false theory.
Weak attempt at discrediting me and others that believe as I do. As I stated in the other comment, you haven't a clue.
: KiwiChristian Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 21:30:30
the SCIENTIFIC evidences all point to a young earth created around 7,000 years ago, btw.
From a
scientific perspective, please list the evidences that support a 7000 year old earth. And please, no right-wing-evangelistic-pseudo-science, genuine scientific evidence that is well supported.
: KiwiChristian Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 21:32:49
Really? Are we just going to throw weblinks back and forth? That will get us nowhere.
You don't like to read? Much of what needs to be said is far too much to type and has been better stated by others.
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 18:04:48
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 13:08:53
I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth. Like sin, small or big, is still sin. So, whether how small or great a falseness is in a scientific theory, the theory still is false. And what is false can never be taken to be truth. Moreover, what is partly false and partly truth, is as a whole, is false.
Yeah, I get your point. If current scientific theory is fallible, you are free to insert the 10,000 year old YE universe concept. ::sarcasm::
Nothing close to that Alan. It's about truth and lies.
Whether the earth was created 10,000 years ago or millions, is really not my concern. My concern is that the scientific community preach to the world, even starting at the very young and tender age of a child, their theory of evolution, touching the very delicate subject of how all things came to existence and how life began to exist, and how things and living creatures came to be as they are at present, as though it is the truth. It's like the world at large is presented and is tempted in like manner, to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden as it was at the beginning, to Adam and Eve. IMO therefore, the world, who are of the seed of Adam, like their father, is tempted and is deceived.
The Christian parent ought to guide their young and not fall into this temptation and be deceived, by preaching and teaching their children, the truth of God and of the gospel of Christ, and train their children in the way he should go, that is, of the Lord.
And the truth that must be taught the child in relation to the thread topic, is that ALL things were created by a creator, that is, God, that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. That ALL things were created through Him and for Him. And that He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And that this is a supernatural act of the supernatural Creator, an act that science cannot know nor explain. With this, the child is girded with the truth on this matter, as a shield with which he will be able to stand against those who attempts to preach another, such as from those who teach that there is no Creator of things or that all things, including all of present life, is a product of evolution of some original matter or non-matter.
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 22:06:41
I agree. As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God, f
Wrong. Science PROVES there is a God.
For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative.
We are living on a 6,371 km diameter rock, hurtling through space at a speed of 30 km/sec 93 million miles away from a 27 million degrees Fahrenheit inferno and no-one in charge.
The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.
Consider these proofs or arguments for God's existence:
1. CAUSE AND EFFECT (Cosmological)
Every effect has a cause. The cause is greater than the effect.
"For every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God". Hebrews 3:4. The world and the universe are here. This raises the question: "How did it all come into existence?" We know of nothing in this world that has no cause. Thus we must recognise that there is a cause behind this world and the universe.
If the pieces of a watch were shaken up in a can forever, they would never produce a working watch by accident. The fact of a watch's existence demands that there was a watchmaker who made the watch. Hence there must be an intelligent First Cause (God).
2. DESIGN PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF A DESIGNER (Teleological)
Not only does the world and universe exist (with a cause), but it also has a perfect design and purpose. Everything has a purpose. For example, every part of your body has a useful purpose.
Order and useful arrangement imply that the Cause has intelligence and purpose. The intelligence, purpose and harmony in the universe prove the existence of a master architect. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork". Psalm 19:1.
God's purpose, design, harmony and intelligence is seen in:
1. The earth is the right distance from the sun to provide a life-sustaining climate on earth.
2. The moon is the right distance from earth to provide tides at a proper level.
3. Without a moon, we would have no light at night.
4. Every plant, animal and bacteria has a useful purpose.
5. Every part of your body is in the right place (eg: eyes, nose, ears), is the right size and shape (eg: thumb, fingers), and works perfectly to achieve a useful purpose.
6. Flowers are colourful. Trees provide oxygen, shade, and timber for building and heating, they prevent soil erosion, and they support many life forms.
7. How can these be explained? A benevolent Designer has given us all of these blessings because He loves and cares for us. Do you love and care for Him?
8. The human body functions so perfectly in every way.
9. "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made". Psalm 139:14.
3. The UNIQUENESS and INTELLIGENCE OF MAN (Anthropological)
Man is vastly superior to animals, because of his intelligence, his engineering skill, his moral awareness and his awareness of God and eternity.
"So God created man in his own image". Genesis 1:27.
4. MAN'S UNIVERSAL INTUITIVE BELIEF IN GOD (Ontological)
Man everywhere is born with an intuitive belief in God. This manifests itself in a desire to worship God. If man does not find the true God, he worships a God of his own making. Belief in God is intuitive. It is not the result of cultural conditioning.
5. THE MORAL ARGUMENT (Conscience)
Man everywhere has a moral awareness of right and wrong. He feels responsible to do what is right, and to avoid what is wrong.
Question: Where did this sense of moral justice come from?
If man is only a bunch of chemicals, why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Do chemicals have morality?
Answer: The Bible states that moral awareness is God given. Such innate moral standards cannot be due to evolution from unintelligent matter. Romans 2:14,15 states that Gentiles who don't know the 10 Commandments have an inner, moral witness placed there by God. When a man violates his conscience he feels guilt and a fear of punishment. Man's moral awareness can be traced back to the moral values of his Creator. Man's conscience witnesses to the existence of a supreme Law-Giver and Judge who built this sense of right and wrong into man.
6. THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Only life can produce life. The theory of spontaneous generation of life has been proven false by science. (Louis Pasteur 1870). Unintelligent matter cannot produce intelligent life. The eternal, intelligent life source is God. "For with thee is the fountain of life". Psalm 36:9.
7. THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT
Human history points to the unseen Hand of God. God controls, guides and governs the affairs of nations. Examples of God intervening in history are:
i) When Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia, winter came early, and was so severe that it led to their defeat. Job 38:22,23.
ii) When Hitler had crippled England's airforce, he could have easily invaded and conquered Britain. But he delayed and was distracted to bombing English cities. He lost his moment of opportunity due to the prayer answering God.
iii) When the Spanish Armada set out to invade England in 1588 with 130 ships, God sent a devastating storm which was timed perfectly to destroy most of the ships. God spared England for Protestantism, publishing of the King James Bible in 1611, and sending gospel preaching missionaries all over the world.
iv) The allies and the United States developed the atomic bomb before Hitler in World War II.
v) Roman peace had removed pirates from the seas allowing Paul and early missionaries to plant churches all over the world.
vi) In 1453 the Moslems captured Constantinople. Just before it fell, all the precious New Testament manuscripts had been taken to Europe where printing had just been invented in 1440 by Gutenberg. Hence God preserved the New Testament manuscripts from Islamic destruction, and to be printed 10 years after printing was invented.
vii) La Perouse was a French explorer who sailed into Botany Bay only 6 days after Arthur Phillip arrived there with the First Fleet.God wanted England to colonise Australia rather than France.
viii) Men blasphemed God in 1912 by saying that "Not even God could sink the Titanic ocean liner." God judged their sin by sinking the Titanic on its maiden voyage from England to New York on April 15, 1912 when it struck an iceberg.
8. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
We cannot explain the Christ of history without the existence of God. Christ's life is affirmed by the Bible and by secular literature. Christ's virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, teachings, prophecies fulfilled at His death, His bodily resurrection and ascension can only be explained by God's existence. "Never man spake like this man". John 7:46.
How Christ transforms lives for good, and continues to answer prayers is proof of God's existence. Millions of Christians world wide know Christ as God personally.
9. THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT
Man could not have authored the Bible. We know that the Bible is authored by God because it foretells the future with 100% accuracy every time. No other book in the world has 100% fulfilled prophecy. This shows that it comes from the mind of God. Man would not write a book about how his God whom he loves and worships gets crucified. Man would teach that we get to God by our good works. The Bible is accurate from Science, Archaeology, Prophecy, Unity and Morality.
10. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE KNOW GOD PERSONALLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST
Jesus Christ has answered millions of people's prayers and transformed millions of lives from misery, sin and despair to love, joy, peace, hope and victory. Do not be like the fool who says that there is no God. Receive Jesus Christ as your God and Saviour from sin today. Then you too will know God personally.
Dean. www.calvarystudy.info
: KiwiChristian Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 01:27:18
Quote from: Michael2012 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 - 22:06:41
As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God..
Science PROVES there is a God.
For me, one of the main reasons i believe in God is the sheer impossibility of the alternative.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because
what may be known of God is manifest in them, for
God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse,
With that alone, we all are without excuse in saying that we know not the existence of God. I said in one of my previous post, that with the reality that science fails to provide the knowledge of how things came into being, how life came to being or where it came from, what is there, if any, in the beginning, people should be lead to the reality of and the truth of the existence of some Creator, that is, as is revealed in scriptures, God, YHWH.
Perhaps what is right is that science actually is proof that there is God. And it is wrong to say that science cannot deal with God, and right to say that the unbelieving man reject and denies that science is proof that there is God.
: KiwiChristian Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 01:27:18Wrong. Science PROVES there is a God.
Nope.
Consider these proofs or arguments for God's existence:
All that followed are arguments for but do not constitute proof for the existence of God. They are indeed very strong arguments favoring the existence of God but that can only aid in the conclusion reached through deductive reasoning that God exists.
Science is the systematic knowledge of the
physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. God is neither physical nor material; God is Spirit. The spirit and the spiritual world is outside the purview of science -- Period.
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 22:40:55
From a scientific perspective, please list the evidences that support a 7000 year old earth. And please, no right-wing-evangelistic-pseudo-science, genuine scientific evidence that is well supported.
From a
scientific perspective, please list the evidence that support a billions year old earth. And please, no left-wing-humanisitic-self faith based-pseudo-science. Only genuine scientific evidence that is well supported by observable and testable data and or evidence, not just large numbers of haughty, deceived, or sheeple people.
: Amo Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 09:06:44
From a scientific perspective, please list the evidence that support a billions year old earth. And please, no left-wing-humanisitic-self faith based-pseudo-science. Only genuine scientific evidence that is well supported by observable and testable data and or evidence, not just large numbers of haughty, deceived, or sheeple people.
Stop being foolish, the library is FULL of this information, go there and educate yourself.
: 4WD Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 05:16:33
Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. God is neither physical nor material; God is Spirit. The spirit and the spiritual world is outside the purview of science - Period.
Science involves and starts with observing the physical or material world ~ nature, the reality that God had created and made. All of nature is evidence to the existence of the creator God. By the mere observation of nature, man will not fail to see and know that God exist.
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that we are without excuse (Rom.1:20). And this even was from since the creation of the world, even in ancient times, when man does not know science, man is said to not miss to see and know that God exist. What more now that man knows science, when man observes nature far better than man can in ancient times. The more then that they would not fail to see this truth, that God exist. The case at which man today, especially the scientists, do not believe that God exist, is nothing but a case of plain unbelief and rejection of the truth and knowledge about God.
Yes God is spirit and He is invisible. So, some argues then that science can't know what in the first place is not observable. But what is invisible may well can not be seen, but it does not mean that it is not observable. Science deals with the invisible as well. It observes air/wind by the visible effects on other visible things that it produces and even with the invisible sound it makes. It deals with a lot of other invisible things, such as gravity and electricity. But with regards the invisible God, who is observable in like manner as wind is observed, science or scientist say that science cannot deal with God. The obvious is that, not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God. As such, they intentionally don't make observations or don't want to observe God by the visible effects God have on visible things.
: Alan Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 10:32:26
Stop being foolish, the library is FULL of this information, go there and educate yourself.
Yes, it is full of information written by people whose chosen faith is the religion of evolutionary "science". This means and or proves nothing, as humanity has been so very very wrong so very very many times, and evolutionists have followed the exact same pattern. Preaching what they passed off as absolute truth, only to be proved wrong again and again later. So who is being foolish, the one who places their faith in that same humanity, or the one who places their faith in God's word?
: Michael2012 Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 10:57:17
Science involves and starts with observing the physical or material world ~ nature, the reality that God had created and made. All of nature is evidence to the existence of the creator God. By the mere observation of nature, man will not fail to see and know that God exist. His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that we are without excuse (Rom.1:20). And this even was from since the creation of the world, even in ancient times, when man does not know science, man is said to not miss to see and know that God exist. What more now that man knows science, when man observes nature far better than man can in ancient times. The more then that they would not fail to see this truth, that God exist. The case at which man today, especially the scientists, do not believe that God exist, is nothing but a case of plain unbelief and rejection of the truth and knowledge about God.
Yes God is spirit and He is invisible. So, some argues then that science can't know what in the first place is not observable. But what is invisible may well can not be seen, but it does not mean that it is not observable. Science deals with the invisible as well. It observes air/wind by the visible effects on other visible things that it produces and even with the invisible sound it makes. It deals with a lot of other invisible things, such as gravity and electricity. But with regards the invisible God, who is observable in like manner as wind is observed, science or scientist say that science cannot deal with God. The obvious is that, not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God. As such, they intentionally don't make observations or don't want to observe God by the visible effects God have on visible things.
Scientists claim to follow the evidence where it leads. That is their job as scientists, and that is what science claims to do.
The truth of the matter is that scientists do follow the evidence, but it leads to a conclusion they do not like.
So they reject the evidence and hide behind the claim that science cannot say anything about God.
That is utter rubbish. Romans 1:20 makes a clear point that the evidence points to God and God alone. The recognition of God in nature is made plain to all, even to scientists.
The rejection of scientific evidence by the scientific community is willful. This misrepresentation and corruption of the scientific evidence is willfully malicious and false.
It is just sad that a whole bunch of Christians buy into the lie and even help to spread it. They eagerly swallow the claim that science cannot say anything about God, even though scripture states exactly the opposite.
Instead of talking some sense in these scientists and asking them how they can possibly deny God whilst staring Him right in the face, they tap them on the shoulder and give then a thumbs up.
It would not surprise me at all if on the last day God asks these scientists how they could have denied Him, they would point at the Christians and say: "How was I supposed to know, even they were OK with it!"
Romans 1:20 is very clear. The only valid conclusion anyone can draw from studying nature is that God exists.
Those who say otherwise are fools, and those who follow the fools are fools as well.
: Michael2012 Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 10:57:17
Science involves and starts with observing the physical or material world ~ nature, the reality that God had created and made. All of nature is evidence to the existence of the creator God. By the mere observation of nature, man will not fail to see and know that God exist. His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that we are without excuse (Rom.1:20). And this even was from since the creation of the world, even in ancient times, when man does not know science, man is said to not miss to see and know that God exist. What more now that man knows science, when man observes nature far better than man can in ancient times. The more then that they would not fail to see this truth, that God exist. The case at which man today, especially the scientists, do not believe that God exist, is nothing but a case of plain unbelief and rejection of the truth and knowledge about God.
Yes God is spirit and He is invisible. So, some argues then that science can't know what in the first place is not observable. But what is invisible may well can not be seen, but it does not mean that it is not observable. Science deals with the invisible as well. It observes air/wind by the visible effects on other visible things that it produces and even with the invisible sound it makes. It deals with a lot of other invisible things, such as gravity and electricity. But with regards the invisible God, who is observable in like manner as wind is observed, science or scientist say that science cannot deal with God. The obvious is that, not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God. As such, they intentionally don't make observations or don't want to observe God by the visible effects God have on visible things.
With all due respect, Michael, you confuse science with scientists. You complain that "not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God", but you are greatly mistaken. Many scientists have dealt and do deal with God. Many scientists are God fearing persons, just as you are. It is just, apparently, that not all of them agree with you on theological matters. That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with the person, the scientist. Scientists can and many do deal with God. Science by definition can not and does not deal with God.
It is really repulsive to read of the bashing of science by those who quite obviously know nothing about science. It is akin to the atheist's bashing of the word of God. It is done in ignorance.
: 4WD Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 11:54:39
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:57:17
Science involves and starts with observing the physical or material world ~ nature, the reality that God had created and made. All of nature is evidence to the existence of the creator God. By the mere observation of nature, man will not fail to see and know that God exist. His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that we are without excuse (Rom.1:20). And this even was from since the creation of the world, even in ancient times, when man does not know science, man is said to not miss to see and know that God exist. What more now that man knows science, when man observes nature far better than man can in ancient times. The more then that they would not fail to see this truth, that God exist. The case at which man today, especially the scientists, do not believe that God exist, is nothing but a case of plain unbelief and rejection of the truth and knowledge about God.
Yes God is spirit and He is invisible. So, some argues then that science can't know what in the first place is not observable. But what is invisible may well can not be seen, but it does not mean that it is not observable. Science deals with the invisible as well. It observes air/wind by the visible effects on other visible things that it produces and even with the invisible sound it makes. It deals with a lot of other invisible things, such as gravity and electricity. But with regards the invisible God, who is observable in like manner as wind is observed, science or scientist say that science cannot deal with God. The obvious is that, not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God. As such, they intentionally don't make observations or don't want to observe God by the visible effects God have on visible things.
With all due respect, Michael, you confuse science with scientists. You complain that "not that science/scientists cannot deal with God, but that science/scientist do not deal with God", but you are greatly mistaken. Many scientists have dealt and do deal with God. Many scientists are God fearing persons, just as you are. It is just, apparently, that not all of them agree with you on theological matters. That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with the person, the scientist. Scientists can and many do deal with God. Science by definition can not and does not deal with God.
I don't confuse science with scientists Sir. Let me say that statement in another way, for apparently I have not made myself clear with such statement. Sorry about that.
The obvious is that, not that science, as a method, cannot deal with God, being a method that was invented by man to know not about God but of other things, but that science do not deal with God, and that, not that scientists, as being a man of science, who employ and practice science, makes scientific studies, have confidence and trust in science, who is filled with scientific knowledge, cannot deal with God, but that scientist do not deal with God using science.
: 4WD Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 11:54:39
Science by definition can not and does not deal with God.
Who says so? The scientific community? Science can very well deal with God, it just doesn't want to.
Why is it that science can deal with dark matter, even though it cant be observed and even though science isn't even sure it exists? Because the evidence points to the conclusion that something must be there.
Why is it that science can happily deal with multiverses, string theories and space-time continuums? Because the evidence points to the conclusion something must have been before.
Science can't say anything about these topics, yet every scientists has something to say about it.
But when it comes to the evidence pointing to the existence of a Creator, suddenly all these scientists hide behind the claim that it is beyond the scope of their profession.
: AVZ Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 11:41:51
Scientists claim to follow the evidence where it leads. That is their job as scientists, and that is what science claims to do.
The truth of the matter is that scientists do follow the evidence, but it leads to a conclusion they do not like.
So they reject the evidence and hide behind the claim that science cannot say anything about God.
You are so far out in left field here I feel lowered even responding to your idiotic claim, but nevertheless, your conspiracy theory is laughable at best. To believe that the whole of science disregards God just because it doesn't want to face the "facts" is right up there with the stupidest comments of 2017. Perhaps you will win the award. rofl
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 22:40:55
From a scientific perspective, please list the evidences that support a 7000 year old earth. And please, no right-wing-evangelistic-pseudo-science, genuine scientific evidence that is well supported.
Please define "right-wing-evangelistic-pseudo-science"
: Alan Sat Dec 09, 2017 - 22:42:20
You don't like to read? Much of what needs to be said is far too much to type and has been better stated by others.
Ok, you dont want a dialog. What a shame.
God bless.
: Amo Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 09:06:44
From a scientific perspective, please list the evidence that support a billions year old earth. And please, no left-wing-humanisitic-self faith based-pseudo-science. Only genuine scientific evidence that is well supported by observable and testable data and or evidence, not just large numbers of haughty, deceived, or sheeple people.
He wont.
He likes a monolouge and not a dialog.
he assumes because there is a website with information on it or there are books in a library, that his fairytale religion of evolution is true.
he seems incapable of a friendly, intelligent conversation.
: 4WD Sun Dec 10, 2017 - 05:16:33
Nope.All that followed are arguments for but do not constitute proof for the existence of God. They are indeed very strong arguments favoring the existence of God but that can only aid in the conclusion reached through deductive reasoning that God exists.
Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. God is neither physical nor material; God is Spirit. The spirit and the spiritual world is outside the purview of science -- Period.
Ok. God bless you.
Still waiting for one shred of evidence for evolution.
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. "The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History". (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).
Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.
Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?)
Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).
The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a "Tertiary" lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)? Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267.
Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination. Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.
Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, "A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia's Institute of Geology: "If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears."" Why did Professor Amanniyazov assume dinosaur extinction 150 million years ago as absolutely certainty? Why did he not consider the alternative position of dinosaurs living with man recently? The fact that dinosaur and human footprints have been found in the same rock strata proves that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
This is a great problem to evolutionists who believe that dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years ago. Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs died out 67 million years before man appeared. These footprints prove that:
a) Man and dinosaur lived at the same time, and b) The evolutionary geological column is completely wrong in its dating of rocks.
The evidence for these tracks being genuine are:
i) The tracks of man and dinosaur are widely distributed from Turkestan to Texas.
ii) The tracks are mostly exposed by bulldozers or erosion.
iii) Two Palaeontologists have pronounced them genuine:
- Dr. Camp of the University of California, and
- Dr. G. Westcott of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
iv) The associated dinosaur tracks are accepted as valid.
v) Some prints have ridges of mud pushed up around them.
vi) Upon sawing through the footprints, the rock particles underneath are more compressed than particles surrounding the prints. Source: "Scientific American", A.G. Ingalls: "The Carboniferous Mystery" 162 (1940), page 14. See R.L. Wysong "The Creation-Evolution Controversy", p.373
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.
Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars, and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.
Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.This implies a young universe.
Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun's diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth's oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.
Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun's heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).
Jupiter's Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike, having the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. Evolution claims that all planets were molten 5 billion years ago and volcanic activity stopped 4 billion years ago as they cooled. The moons Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and many impact craters. Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has 7 active volcanoes and no impact craters. Titan has volcanoes.
Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (4) have rings, which could not survive 4 billion years. Jupiter's intense magnetic field radiation would sweep out its rings. (Bradford Smith, a Voyager Scientist).
Venus' high temperature and little erosion, imply a young age for Venus. If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.
Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes, as well as month-long dust storms. Several thousand years of this weather would have seriously eroded these edges and its strong colour differences. Powerful solar UV radiation would have long ago broken down the small amount of water, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere and hydrogen into space. Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen, but measurements show the opposite being some surface water and very little atmospheric oxygen.
Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.
Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth's surface, never being found in the rock strata. If earth were 5 billion years old, we would find many meteorite craters in the sedimentary rock strata, but we don't. Thus all meteorites which have struck the earth, have hit it in the last 5000 years.
Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years age for oil wells, and implies an age for oil of around 10,000 years. Oil, coal and gas were formed during the Great Flood 4,400 years ago (in 2418BC).
Earth's Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan's Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth's known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than "white hot" initially."Popular Lectures and Addresses"(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415). If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).
Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates
Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor at least 60 miles thick. However, the average depth of sediment on the ocean floor is about 800 metres, and the continents have not eroded once yet. The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence, sea floors seem young.
Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them. Unless man cuts them down, they never seem to die. 17 Bristlecone pines are dated about 4,000 years old. Since the Flood occurred about 2,418 BC, this implies that:
a) all the pre-Flood Sequoias and Bristlecones were wiped out by the Flood, and b) there is no record of any living tree older than the Flood.
Man's Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution's 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 years.
: KiwiChristian Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 02:04:56
Ok, you dont want a dialog. What a shame.
God bless.
Just typing words does not constitute proof of anything, credible sources are ALWAYS required to back up any claim, unless of course the you yourself are the accredited source, which I highly doubt here.
: KiwiChristian Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 02:09:48
He wont.
He likes a monolouge and not a dialog.
he assumes because there is a website with information on it or there are books in a library, that his fairytale religion of evolution is true.
he seems incapable of a friendly, intelligent conversation.
I have been studying this topic for a very long time, in fact since one of the teachers in Bible school made the statement that ÿour entire Christian faith hinges on the belief of a created universe within the last 10,000 years". His teachings were full of holes and refused to carry on discussion about the specific statement. I was actually quite green on the entire subject matter at the time and never really had much discussion with other Christians regarding any time frame for the creation process, but what was really interesting was that another teacher that was running a course on Christian Apologetics had stated to us that he genuinely believed in an old earth creation. How could two teachers in the same ministry teach two opposing views? After considerable study, I soon came to the conclusion that the young earth idea was one of pure faith rather than one that could support evidence (since none exists), I have, and do respect that faith in others but please, do not attempt to "prove" that the universe and earth are 10,000 years old, the evidence just does NOT support that view.
: KiwiChristian Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 02:13:13
Still waiting for one shred of evidence for evolution.
There has been a number of documents posted in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=85&v=Q-aGAX27SIo
How old is the Universe?
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
: Alan Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 06:12:17
I have been studying this topic for a very long time,
So have i.
in fact since one of the teachers in Bible school made the statement that ÿour entire Christian faith hinges on the belief of a created universe within the last 10,000 years".
Wow, one person at a "Bible school", huh?
His teachings were full of holes
A bit like the religion of evolution. full of holes.
and refused to carry on discussion about the specific statement.
Ahh, a bit like you, huh?
I was actually quite green on the entire subject matter at the time and never really had much discussion with other Christians regarding any time frame for the creation process,
Well, the Bible clearly shows it took 7 literal 24 hour days.
but what was really interesting was that another teacher that was running a course on Christian Apologetics had stated to us that he genuinely believed in an old earth creation.
Oh, people can believe in what they want. Thats called freedom of choice.
How could two teachers in the same ministry teach two opposing views?
Freedom of choice. And one reason i dont like the idea of "seminary" type schools. You learn what the TEACHER believes.
After considerable study, I soon came to the conclusion that the young earth idea was one of pure faith rather than one that could support evidence (since none exists),
What did you study? What things did you look at that disproves a young earth?
I have MUCH evidence ( which you say does not exist ) that supports a young earth.
I have, and do respect that faith in others but please, do not attempt to "prove" that the universe and earth are 10,000 years old, the evidence just does NOT support that view.
No, you do not have respect, based on your conversations here.
So, i cannot present my proof to you because with you it is a case of "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up".
What a shame you are so close minded.
Proof of a 10,000 year old earth does not exist, clearly the earth is 4.3 Billion years old.
: Alan Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 18:41:06
clearly the earth is 4.3 Billion years old.
prove it.
: KiwiChristian Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 20:29:36
prove it.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html
: Alan Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:18:14
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html
I would say these are proof for why you believe what you do, but not proof of the earth. Scientific American has the most honest reply in the phrase "current understanding."
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:26:55
I would say these are proof for why you believe what you do, but not proof of the earth. Scientific American has the most honest reply in the phrase "current understanding."
I like Scientific America, despite being a canuck. ::crackup::
Just don't call it fact. There is a difference between a theory with strong evidence and a fact.
It's directly observed to happen. So you can't do better than that.
: Alan Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:18:14
https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html
i can post weblinks, too, but lets have a conversation.
please give me ONE piece of evidence and lets discuss it.
notice how he refuses to discuss anything, but instead just post links.
i could also post plenty of links, but he will say they are not legit or not real science, etc. without even looking at it.
ONE evidence for the earth not being very old are the existence of polystrata fossils.
These are whole fossilized trees crossing several rock strata and are preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 00:04:17
It's directly observed to happen. So you can't do better than that.
Evolution has never ever been observed.
Evolution has never ever been observed.
Of course it has. Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact. We've even directly observed speciation. Would you like to see some examples?
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 07:22:22
Of course it has. Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact. We've even directly observed speciation. Would you like to see some examples?
Sure.
: KiwiChristian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 02:20:07
notice how he refuses to discuss anything, but instead just post links.
i could also post plenty of links, but he will say they are not legit or not real science, etc. without even looking at it.
I must have forgot that you don't like to read. Are you a scientist that has all of this knowledge stored in your head ready to reiterate here in text? If not, where do you get your information?
Alan writes:
Are you a scientist that has all of this knowledge stored in your head ready to reiterate here in text? If not, where do you get your information?
No one can hope to be fully up-to-date on science these days. At best, a scientist out of his speciality knows enough of the basics to know what to look for to find out.
Barbarian asks:
Of course it has. Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact. We've even directly observed speciation. Would you like to see some examples?
Sure.
The first one directly observed was O. gigas from O. lamarckana (species of primrose) from a polyploidy event. DeVries noted the new species was fertile, but completely unable to reproduce with the original species.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5533.html
Drosophila miranda, a new species of fly which was again reproductively isolated from the species from which it came.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/
Both the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis admit the fact of speciation. Why is this so important? It's important because reproductive isolation means the two populations will continue to diverge over time. The ICR has endorsed the idea that new species, genera, and families can evolve. But, they say, that's the limit. The problem is that the line separating families usually has lots of transitional forms that make it impossible to clearly define them. So it's slippery slope. They'd rather just deny speciation, but it happens often enough that there's no point in denying it. Once you open the door to speciation, there's no way to set up a wall to further evolution.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 11:10:38
Barbarian asks:
Of course it has. Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact. We've even directly observed speciation. Would you like to see some examples?
The first one directly observed was O. gigas from O. lamarckana (species of primrose) from a polyploidy event. DeVries noted the new species was fertile, but completely unable to reproduce with the original species.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5533.html
Drosophila miranda, a new species of fly which was again reproductively isolated from the species from which it came.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/
Both the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis admit the fact of speciation. Why is this so important? It's important because reproductive isolation means the two populations will continue to diverge over time. The ICR has endorsed the idea that new species, genera, and families can evolve. But, they say, that's the limit. The problem is that the line separating families usually has lots of transitional forms that make it impossible to clearly define them. So it's slippery slope. They'd rather just deny speciation, but it happens often enough that there's no point in denying it. Once you open the door to speciation, there's no way to set up a wall to further evolution.
None of these examples are proof of evolution.
Most of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.
In case where asexuality occurred, it has been proven that this in fact is a showcase of devolution and the "species" had little chance of survival.
Furthermore, where natural variations were found, it is impossible to establish if these variations or ability to vary, is not an inherent quality of the species itself.
Finally of course, the fly still remained to be a fly, the flower continued to be a flower, the fern remained to be a fern etc.
As I said: Evolution has never ever been observed.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 11:10:38
Barbarian asks:
Of course it has. Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact. We've even directly observed speciation. Would you like to see some examples?
Oh, changes WITHIN a kind DO happen. That is not the issue.
None of these examples are proof of evolution.
Directly observed. Can't do better than that.
Most of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.
Nope. None of these were.
In case where asexuality occurred, it has been proven that this in fact is a showcase of devolution and the "species" had little chance of survival.
That would be pretty weird, given the reproductive success of whiptail lizards and other asexually-reproducing reptiles.
Furthermore, where natural variations were found, it is impossible to establish if these variations or ability to vary, is not an inherent quality of the species itself.
The ability to evolve is an inherent ability in all living things on Earth. It's built into DNA.
Finally of course, the fly still remained to be a fly
Which is like saying if a lemur-like organism gave rise to humans, the primate still remained a primate. True, but obviously evolved to something quite different.
As I said: Evolution has never ever been observed.
And now you know better.
Oh, changes WITHIN a kind DO happen. That is not the issue.
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:45:26
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
Ahh, back to your old tricks, my friend.
This is one area where scientists SHOULD get together and examine. What IS a "kind".
Of course, the evolutionist will tailor their definition to fit-in with their pre-conceived ideas and false presuppositions.
And, maybe to a similar extent a creationist may do the same.
I would say the Bible indicates a "kind" is an animal that can ( or rather "could originally" ) reproduce.
Also, i would say that ANY 6 six old, when shown a picture of a cat, tiger, dog and lion would say that the odd one out is the dog.
Now, i dont think you WILL, but how about giving us YOUR definition of "kind", please?
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:42:59
Directly observed. Can't do better than that.
Nope. None of these were.
That would be pretty weird, given the reproductive success of whiptail lizards and other asexually-reproducing reptiles.
The ability to evolve is an inherent ability in all living things on Earth. It's built into DNA.
Which is like saying if a lemur-like organism gave rise to humans, the primate still remained a primate. True, but obviously evolved to something quite different.
And now you know better.
Has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?
Or an ape produce a non-ape?
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:42:59
Nope. None of these were.
See, now that's simply not true.
Take only this example from the link you provided:
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.First of all it was a human agent who interfered and artificially enforced crossing the two plants. And he ended up with a sterile hybrid.
Now sterile can mean two things; either it is sterile in the sense that it cannot reproduce...which of course already shows it is not evolution; or it was sterile meaning uncontaminated...which can only be produced in laboratory conditions.
Anyway, the result as rather "unfortunate" as the new plant ended up being something unpreferred. Again that does not show evolution at all.
All the other examples are just variations of the above, and where different species were found in nature, it can simply not been proven they weren't there all along.
Once again, evolution has never ever been observed.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:45:26The problem is in defining "kind."
The real problem it seems is defining evolution.
That seems rather apparent from Kiwi's question:
: KiwiChristian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 00:08:28
Has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?
Or an ape produce a non-ape?
Kiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is. Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution. And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe. So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog. It is absurd, but that is just how it is. It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago. Any such notion would just be rejected. And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.
Has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?
Or an ape produce a non-ape?
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed? This won't help you; it's very transparent.
Kiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is. Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution. And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe. So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.
I once saw a definition of the creationist idea of evolution:
"Any change that's too great to have ever been observed."
It is absurd, but that is just how it is. It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago. Any such notion would just be rejected. And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.
Perhaps you're right. It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
(Barbarian offers some cases of speciation in nature)
Most of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.
Nope. None of them were.
See, now that's simply not true.
It's just a fact. The cases I cited where from nature, and not man-made.
Take only this example from the link you provided:
There certainly are man-made species. I just gave you only samples that weren't made by humans. These examples of evolution of new species demonstrate that it happens regularly in nature. Sometimes, we're lucky enough to be able to document it.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:22:47
Perhaps you're right. It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
I think the latter, but the "polystrate tree fossil" dissuasion could be an attempt at blocking and/or dodging.
Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
Ahh, back to your old tricks, my friend.
(the tricky Barbarian is asking Kiwi for evidence supporting his beliefs)
This is one area where scientists SHOULD get together and examine. What IS a "kind".
It's a creationist belief, not a scientific term. So up to you to show us what it is, and provide evidence for it.
I would say the Bible indicates a "kind" is an animal that can ( or rather "could originally" ) reproduce.
So a species, according to your definition. But as you see, new species evolve naturally.
Now, i dont think you WILL, but how about giving us YOUR definition of "kind", please?
It's your term. You've just told us it's the same as the scientific term "species." So that's what we have on the table now.
: 4WD Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 05:40:08
The real problem it seems is defining evolution.
That seems rather apparent from Kiwi's question:
Kiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is. Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution. And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe. So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog. It is absurd, but that is just how it is. It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago. Any such notion would just be rejected. And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.
Or being able to recognize the partial differential equation that serves as the mathematical model for radiometric dating, and the assumptions that are made in such a model.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:20:22
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed? This won't help you; it's very transparent.
No, come on, dont waste my time.
Answer the question with an ANSWER, NOT with another question.
Then again, you HAVE answered this question in effect with a "no".
Thats all you had to say.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:22:47
I once saw a definition of the creationist idea of evolution:
"Any change that's too great to have ever been observed."
Wow, one persons definition.
I have seen multiple definitions from scientists that others would reject.
Whats your point?
Perhaps you're right. It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Not a "dodge".
PLEASE, SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF WHY YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION OR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS FAIRYTALE.
Or being able to recognize the partial differential equation that serves as the mathematical model for radiometric dating, and the assumptions that are made in such a model.
Recently, the model was tested in a blind study on the flow that buried Pompeii. Argon/argon testing accurately dated it. Which is really impressive, given how recently, in geological time, that it happened. So evidence beats assumptions, again.
(Barbarian is asked if anyone has lived long enough to see a new order of mammals evolve)
Barbarian asks:
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed? This won't help you; it's very transparent.
No, come on, dont waste my time.
If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. The argument that we can't know these things because no one ever lived long enough to see them happen, is an obvious dodge. Then again, you HAVE answered this question in effect with a "no".
Thats all you had to say.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 18:18:25
Recently, the model was tested in a blind study on the flow that buried Pompeii. Argon/argon testing accurately dated it. Which is really impressive, given how recently, in geological time, that it happened. So evidence beats assumptions, again.
One instance also does not cover the whole area of the model. You didn't reference the percent error involved. Nice try though.
One instance also does not cover the whole area of the model.
It merely shows that the method works. Remarkably, it worked very well, for a flow so recent. Because there was so little change over two thousand years, it was a tough challenge.
You didn't reference the percent error involved.
Barbarian checks...
A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.
With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.
"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics here and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.
The center has now used the argon-argon method to date many recent important fossil finds, from the highly touted human ancestor dubbed "Lucy" and the major Ethiopian discoveries of Berkeley anthropologist Tim White to Homo erectus remains from Java.
Argon-argon dating also has been used to establish the age of meteorites several billion years old, mass extinctions, climate changes and other geologic events in the last several hundred million years.
The new results were published in the Aug. 29 issue of Science magazine. Renne's co-authors are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also is head of the Vesuvian Vulcanological Observatory.
Orsi and Civetta are working with the center to obtain argon-argon dates for numerous past volcanic eruptions in the Campi Flegrei or Phlegraean Fields surrounding Naples, in search of clues to the periodicity of activity that might allow prediction of future eruptions. Naples and vicinity, with more than two million inhabitants, is one of the world's most vulnerable populations to volcanic hazard.
According to the Roman historian Pliny the Younger, Vesuvius erupted in the afternoon of Aug. 24, 1,918 years ago, destroying Pompeii, Herculaneum and other Roman cities.
The certainty of the date tempted the team to test the ability of the argon-argon dating technique to establish the age of recent historic events. If it gave an accurate age for the pumice thrown out by the volcano, it would be the youngest rock ever dated by the technique.
The most common method for obtaining the age of objects as young as this is carbon-14 dating, a technique limited to organic material such as wood or bone.
To everyone's surprise the date given by the argon-argon dating technique was 1,925 years ago-off by only seven years. The scientific error on the estimate was plus or minus 94 years.
"We nailed the date to five percent on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to one percent or less," Renne says.
The result is so amazing because every dating technique invokes assumptions or involves uncertainties that limit its ability to pinpoint dates with extreme precision.
With the new dating system it should be possible to date even younger samples, perhaps a mere 1,000 years old, with 10 percent accuracy.
"Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon and argon-argon dating," Renne says.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1997/0924/dating.html
Nice try though.
Amazing try, really. No one thought that the system would work so well for such a recent flow.
Carbon 14 isn't used much for paleontology, because it has such a short half-life. However, scientists found a way to calibrate it as well...
You are here: Home / Age of the Earth / Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
November 12, 2012 by Natural Historian 22 Comments
Do places on Earth exist where annual records have been stored for tens of thousands of years and can be accessed today? Ice-cores and tree rings can preserve long records of yearly events but some of the best records come from layers of sediment underlying some lakes which, if formed under the right conditions, can be read like the annual rings of an oak tree. These alternating layers of sediments and sometimes organic material are called varves and by counting each varve sequentially a varve chronology can be constructed. Varve chronologies are a window to the past and have been used to study past climate conditions, the periodicity of volcanic eruptions and as an independent test of radiocarbon (C14) dating methods.
One place were varves have been studied for decades is below a deep lake in Japan: Lake Suigetsu. Here a varve chronology stretching back well over 50,000 years has been established.
An important summary of the significance of this varve chronology can be found in an open access article from Science here with a summary from Nature magazine here. For several decades, varve chronologies have been featured as clear evidence of an ancient Earth. The evidence from varves presents a formidable challenge to young-earth creationists (YECs) and their assertion that scientific evidence, properly interpreted, points to a young earth. Though a well-worn example, this recent work pushing the varve chronology to close to 60,000 year bears reviewing in light of how YECs have responded in the past to this challenging data.
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/
PLEASE, SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF WHY YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
As you learned, it's been directly observed. Can't do better than that. Even speciation has been documented in the wild. Would you like to learn the evidence for common descent?
OR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS FAIRYTALE.
See above. Not only does radioisotope dating demonstrate billions of years of Earth history, it replaced a method that showed at least 10 million years. Lord Kelvin showed, that by measuring the heat flux of the Earth, it had to be millions of years old, but not much more than ten million years unless (as Kelvin wrote) some other source of heat could be found. Then radioactivity was discovered, and Kelvin agreed that his estimate was wrong.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:20:22
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed? This won't help you; it's very transparent.
A totally irrelevant comment.
You can actually witness a giant redwood sprouting from a giant redwood seed.
It is a sprout first, then becomes a sapling, then a little plant. After that it does nothing else but mature.
Nobody calls maturing evolution.
It differs in nothing from a baby growing into an adult. The adult will mature and become an old adult.
Nobody would ever say: Look, my baby evolved into an adult.
Maturing is in fact not even a topic in evolution.
But, more importantly it is you who claim that evolution has been observed.
At the same time you say that nobody ever observed a giant redwood tree growing to full height.
So if you state that the 1000 year process of a growing redwood tree is not observable and has not been observed...how can you make the claim that a millions of years taking process like evolution is observable and has been observed?
: 4WD Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 05:40:08
So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.
That is a really dumb comment.
What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another? If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.
So your claim is that one species evolves into another species, but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.
You are being ridiculous.
A totally irrelevant comment.
You see it as different from yours, because the notion of a redwood tree growing to adulthood from a seed doesn't bother you, and the notion of new taxa evolving from old does bother you.
You can actually witness a giant redwood sprouting from a giant redwood seed.
You can actually witness new species evolving from old ones. But no one ever lived long enough to see a giant redwood grow from a seed, or new species grow into new genera, families, orders, and so on.
But, more importantly it is you who claim that evolution has been observed.
Yep. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means? Hint: it certainly includes speciation, which as you know, is directly observed.
At the same time you say that nobody ever observed a giant redwood tree growing to full height.
Which is quite true.
So if you state that the 1000 year process of a growing redwood tree is not observable and has not been observed...how can you make the claim that a millions of years taking process like evolution is observable and has been observed?
It doesn't have to take millions of years. Speciation can happen rather rapidly. Common descent is like watching a redwood grow to maturity. But evolution includes much shorter periods of time.
4WD comments:
So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.
AVZ writes:
That is a really dumb comment.
It's very perceptive, and illustrates a lack of understanding on the part of some (certainly not all) creationists.
What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another?
Evolution is also change within a species. And it's also common descent. And everything in between. I'll make it easy. Evolution, in biology, is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.
You're wrong about that.
So your claim is that one species evolves into another species
Which is directly observed, remember.
but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.
To insist that any human could live long enough to see higher taxa evolve is indeed absurd. We can see speciation sometimes, but that's about it.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 23:51:38
You see it as different from yours, because the notion of a redwood tree growing to adulthood from a seed doesn't bother you, and the notion of new taxa evolving from old does bother you.
You can actually witness new species evolving from old ones. But no one ever lived long enough to see a giant redwood grow from a seed, or new species grow into new genera, families, orders, and so on.
Yep. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means? Hint: it certainly includes speciation, which as you know, is directly observed.
Which is quite true.
It doesn't have to take millions of years. Speciation can happen rather rapidly. Common descent is like watching a redwood grow to maturity. But evolution includes much shorter periods of time.
I honestly dont know what point you wish to make and what relevance a redwood tree is to evolution.
The redwood tree neither speciates nor evolves into something different but a redwood tree.
The seed wont grow anything else but a redwood tree.
Your claim goes somewhat like this: Unobserved evolution is true because nobody ever observed a redwood tree grow to full height.
It doesn't make sense at all.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 23:57:19
Evolution is also change within a species.
And that's yet another untruth from your side. Evolution is not about change within a species.
Yes for evolution to be true a species much change, but change in a species is not evolution.
For a change to be evolution, you will have to prove that the species did not have the ability for the change to start with.
Many adaptations of species are triggered by properties the species possessed all along. And if the species had the ability from the onset, then it did not evolve anything.
You have now arrived at the point where you call adaptation the same as evolution, which is most certainly a false claim.
The argument you are trying to put up is really ridiculous.
Are you trying to make us believe that it is not NECESSARY for evolution that speciation MUST occur?
Here is the thing, if no speciation ever occurred, and one species never evolved into another, evolution could not exist. The complete evolutionary ancestral tree would be down the drain.
Good luck with that.
: AVZ Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 03:40:45
I honestly dont know what point you wish to make and what relevance a redwood tree is to evolution.
The redwood tree neither speciates nor evolves into something different but a redwood tree.
The seed wont grow anything else but a redwood tree.
Your claim goes somewhat like this: Unobserved evolution is true because nobody ever observed a redwood tree grow to full height.
It doesn't make sense at all.
The point there is that since you cannot possibly observe the Redwood growing to maturity, it can't possibly be true, but we do know otherwise from a different perspective of observation which we
all partake in.
: Alan Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 06:10:30
The point there is that since you cannot possibly observe the Redwood growing to maturity, it can't possibly be true, but we do know otherwise from a different perspective of observation which we all partake in.
Again, that has nothing to do with evolution.
By looking at one redwood tree, or a whole bunch of them, whether observable or not, you cannot state that the redwood tree at any point in its existence was not a redwood tree.
Neither can you state that the redwood tree will no longer be a redwood tree in future.
The only thing that is observable, millions of times over, is that redwood trees drop redwood seeds that grow into redwood trees.
So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...then the whole redwood argument is one against evolution.
: AVZ Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 06:41:52So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...
But of course you haven't made such observations, nor can you, nor can anyone else. So your conclusion is pure conjecture, having no part in truth.
: AVZ Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 06:41:52
Again, that has nothing to do with evolution.
By looking at one redwood tree, or a whole bunch of them, whether observable or not, you cannot state that the redwood tree at any point in its existence was not a redwood tree.
Neither can you state that the redwood tree will no longer be a redwood tree in future.
The only thing that is observable, millions of times over, is that redwood trees drop redwood seeds that grow into redwood trees.
So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...then the whole redwood argument is one against evolution.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/1058g7b.jpg)
: 4WD Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 07:07:56
But of course you haven't made such observations, nor can you, nor can anyone else. So your conclusion is pure conjecture, having no part in truth.
Of course you could if you wanted.
In the fall you go a redwood forest and collect 1000 seeds.
You plant those seeds and soon you will see those seeds grow into redwood trees.
The year after you go again, and the year after you go again etc etc.
Every year you plant 1000 seeds and after a number of years you will have a few hundred new redwood trees who also drop seeds.
After 30 years you will have observed millions upon millions of seeds, and if they sprout they will all grow into redwood trees.
So you can actually witnessed many redwood generations...not surprisingly...all growing into....redwood trees.
The university of California actually did a generational experiment of fruit flies.
Yep, they bred 600 generations of flies, with an equivalent of 12,000 human generations. In the meantime the meddled with the flies.
So unlike in nature where meddling may happen on a small scale, they did so forcefully and on a large scale.
Guess what they ended up with? FRUIT FLIES!!!
Richard Lenski did an impressive 20-year study on bacteria. The went through a baffling 40,000 generations!
Also here mutations were introduced artificially and forcefully.
Guess what Lenski come up with after 20 years...the exact same bacteria he started off with, but all of them devolved and pained with degenerative mutations.
As I said, evolution has never ever been witnessed. Not even over thousands of generations.
And here you are saying that because we can't see a redwood tree grow out his life, evolution must be true. What a joke.
What you apparently don't realize or understand is that it is impossible for any study to show, demonstrate or prove that evolution can't or doesn't exist.
: Alan Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 07:10:27
(http://i58.tinypic.com/1058g7b.jpg)
(http://www.evidentcreation.com/image/Darwin%20Altar.jpg)
: 4WD Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 07:50:06
What you apparently don't realize or understand is that it is impossible for any study to show, demonstrate or prove that evolution can't or doesn't exist.
Neither does the absence of proof show that it does exist.
: AVZ Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 07:55:05
Neither does the absence of proof show that it does exist.
The Barbarian has shown you examples of proof.
: 4WD Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 08:00:58
The Barbarian has shown you examples of proof.
No he hasn't
Barbarian observes:
Evolution is also change within a species.
And that's yet another untruth from your side. Evolution is not about change within a species.
Sorry, you're just wrong. The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." So changes in the population genes are indeed also evolution by definition.
Yes for evolution to be true a species much change, but change in a species is not evolution.
See above. One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.
For a change to be evolution, you will have to prove that the species did not have the ability for the change to start with.
No. If you think about it, a change from a single individual having a new mutation in one generation, to that mutation spreading widely into the population is exactly what evolution is. By definition.
Many adaptations of species are triggered by properties the species possessed all along.
Such as mutation and natural selection. That's how it works.
And if the species had the ability from the onset, then it did not evolve anything.
Here you are confusing individuals with populations. Individual don't evolve. Populations do.
You have now arrived at the point where you call adaptation the same as evolution,
No. Here, you're confusing a physical adaptation, like making more red blood cells in a high-altitude environment (which is built into mammalian physiology) with a genetic adaptation, like the mutations that permit Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes. One is just individual response, and is not passed on to new generations, and the other is a mutation that affects all descendants who get the new allele as well.
The argument you are trying to put up is really ridiculous.
You're a little confused about these terms and what they mean. It's not surprising. Most people don't understand it very well.
Are you trying to make us believe that it is not NECESSARY for evolution that speciation MUST occur?
That's true. When the allele frequency changes in a population, that's the textbook definition of evolution.
Here is the thing, if no speciation ever occurred, and one species never evolved into another, evolution could not exist.
As you see, that's wrong. Tibetans are not a new species. They've just evolved some adaptations to their environment.
The complete evolutionary ancestral tree would be down the drain.
Here, you're confusing common descent with evolution. It's like confusing gravity and formation of stars. The latter is a consequence of the former, but that does not mean that if it doesn't result in a star forming, it can't be gravity.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 13:02:49One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.
So very, very true.
This misunderstanding of the way science works...
(http://www.evidentcreation.com/image/Darwin%20Altar.jpg)
...if true, would have meant we would not have the contributions of Huxley, Mendel, Morgan, Kimura, Gould, Dobzhansky, Collins, and a host of other great scientists, whose challenges to evolutionary theory led to significant revisions in it.
The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 16:20:07
The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.
Careful, this will come back at you rofl
Careful, this will come back at you
Of course. At least half the time, creationists regard it as cheating, since they aren't able to adjust their idea when new evidence shows up. The other half of the time, they say, "see, science is always wrong."
I get that.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 16:20:07
The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.
Creationists are also open to new evidence. This whole discussion is not about evidence, but it is about the conclusions drawn from it or the assumptions made from it.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 13:02:49
Barbarian observes:
Evolution is also change within a species.
Sorry, you're just wrong. The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." So changes in the population genes are indeed also evolution by definition.
See above. One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.
No. If you think about it, a change from a single individual having a new mutation in one generation, to that mutation spreading widely into the population is exactly what evolution is. By definition.
Such as mutation and natural selection. That's how it works.
Here you are confusing individuals with populations. Individual don't evolve. Populations do.
No. Here, you're confusing a physical adaptation, like making more red blood cells in a high-altitude environment (which is built into mammalian physiology) with a genetic adaptation, like the mutations that permit Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes. One is just individual response, and is not passed on to new generations, and the other is a mutation that affects all descendants who get the new allele as well.
You're a little confused about these terms and what they mean. It's not surprising. Most people don't understand it very well.
That's true. When the allele frequency changes in a population, that's the textbook definition of evolution.
As you see, that's wrong. Tibetans are not a new species. They've just evolved some adaptations to their environment.
Here, you're confusing common descent with evolution. It's like confusing gravity and formation of stars. The latter is a consequence of the former, but that does not mean that if it doesn't result in a star forming, it can't be gravity.
There is nothing in the statements you make that shows any proof of evolution.
What you are talking about is adaptation, which is inherent in any species.
If you would to remove all the Tibetans from the Himalayas and move them to Scandinavia, they will adapt to their new environment.
The ability to adapt is inherent in our DNA, which responds to the environment and switches some properties on or off.
By all means you could move all Scandinavians to the Himalayas, and they will adapt to that new environment as well.
That is nor proof whatsoever that evolution is true.
The ability to adapt is present in any species from the onset, so no new abilities are acquired.
The principal biological functions of a Tibetan and a Scandinavian are identical, and neither are the two different species or will they ever be.
Evolution claims otherwise.
It claims that a species acquires new abilities, not present before in the species. It is those chances that classify the species to become a new species., and that's what evolution is about.
It has never been observed before!
There is nothing in the statements you make that shows any proof of evolution.
What you are talking about is adaptation
No. All humans, moving to a high altitude, will adapt in various ways, such as making more RBCs. This is inherent in all species. What has happened with Tibetans, is the evolution of new alleles that allow them to survive more efficiently at high altitudes.
If you would to remove all the Tibetans from the Himalayas and move them to Scandinavia, they will adapt to their new environment.
No. Turns out, Tibetans who have emigrated to lower areas, retain the mutation, even after several generations. They've evolved a new function that most other humans lack. A few Han Chinese have it, but it's not selected for in Chinese living at lower altitudes. Tibetans are genetically close to Han Chinese, being descended from them.
The ability to adapt is inherent in our DNA, which responds to the environment and switches some properties on or off.
Mutations are inherent properties in living things. Most of them don't do very much. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out. This is why the mutation evolved in Tibetans, but not in other populations.
By all means you could move all Scandinavians to the Himalayas, and they will adapt to that new environment as well.
They would adapt, but eventually, in the population, one or more mutations that made living there more efficient would occur, and natural selection would increase the frequency of that mutation. Wouldn't be the same one that Tibetans have, but it would help. Indian populations in the Andes, for example, have mutations that enhance survival there. But they aren't the same as those that evolved in Tibet.
That is nor proof whatsoever that evolution is true.
Directly observed evolution is the proof. We see that going on in various populations.
The ability to adapt is present in any species from the onset, so no new abilities are acquired.
No, that's wrong. The mutation found in Tibetans is not found in other populations, even those living at high altitudes.
The principal biological functions of a Tibetan and a Scandinavian are identical
No. As you learned, Tibetans have an allele that is not found in Scandinavians. Likewise, many Scandinavians have a mutation that provides excellent immunity to Bubonic Plague, while Tibetans do not. The Black Plague that went through Europe made that mutation widespread among Europeans. They evolved a different adaptation.
Evolution claims otherwise.
It claims that a species acquires new abilities, not present before in the species.
I just gave you two examples. Another is the Milano mutation, which provides excellent protection against arteriosclerosis. We happen to know the very individual in which this new mutation first occurred, and how it spread in the population of his descendants.
It is those chances that classify the species to become a new species., and that's what evolution is about.
You've been misled about that. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So the evolution of the Tibetan EPAS1 gene is by definition, evolution.
Around the world, populations have adapted to life at high altitude in different ways. One adaptation involves making more red blood cells, which transport oxygen to the body's tissues. Indigenous people in the Peruvian Andes have higher red blood cell counts than their countrymen living at sea level, for example.
But Tibetans have evolved a different method. "Tibetans have the highest expression levels for EPAS1 in the world," said co-author Dr Jian Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Schenzhen, China, a research facility that collected the data. "For Western people, after two to three weeks at altitude, the red blood cell count starts to increase. But Tibetans and Sherpas keep the same levels," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude
It has never been observed before!
As you now see, it's been observed many times.
Creationists are also open to new evidence.
Mostly not. A few have conceded that new species or even higher taxa evolve. But that's not the usual.
This whole discussion is not about evidence
For science, it is. Evidence is all that counts.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 23:59:01
You've been misled about that. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So the evolution of the Tibetan EPAS1 gene is by definition, evolution.
Around the world, populations have adapted to life at high altitude in different ways. One adaptation involves making more red blood cells, which transport oxygen to the body's tissues. Indigenous people in the Peruvian Andes have higher red blood cell counts than their countrymen living at sea level, for example.
But Tibetans have evolved a different method. "Tibetans have the highest expression levels for EPAS1 in the world," said co-author Dr Jian Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Schenzhen, China, a research facility that collected the data. "For Western people, after two to three weeks at altitude, the red blood cell count starts to increase. But Tibetans and Sherpas keep the same levels," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude
As you now see, it's been observed many times.
My my...according to science the Tibetans INHERITED the EPAS1 gene in the past from some far away relatives.
That means that the gene existed many generations past.
Which means that those people INHERITED it from their ancestors, who INHERITED it from theirs etc etc.
There is NO PROOF that in this chain of events anyone ACQUIRED the gene.
Now everybody in the world has fragments of the EPAS1 gene.
Which simply means that westeners LOST part of the gene, and the Tibetan family kept it.
That is proof of DEVOLUTION and not evolution.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 00:03:04
Mostly not. A few have conceded that new species or even higher taxa evolve. But that's not the usual.
You cannot make a blanket statement like and use words like "Mostly" or "few" as you simply do not KNOW the majority of creationists.
: AVZ Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 23:15:17
That is a really dumb comment.
What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another? If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.
So your claim is that one species evolves into another species, but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.
You are being ridiculous.
yes, we get different species. That is not debatable.
We get big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, white dogs.
They are still a dog!
We also see bacteria changing. Its still a bacteria!
Yet the general theory is we are ALL related.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:45:26
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
PROVE that ANY form is "transitional"
More scientific wisdom from the superior skills of observation among evolutionary scientists. It's getting harder all the time to argue with such superior intellect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html
'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist
: Amo Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 07:25:01
More scientific wisdom from the superior skills of observation among evolutionary scientists. It's getting harder all the time to argue with such superior intellect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html)
'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist
So because his claim is way out in left field, does that apply to all of science? Ken Ham is every bit as much a whack job if you want specifics about creationists. Dinosaurs and humans did NOT coexist, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, but nutty Ham claims they were on the ark ::frown::
http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes
The above link addresses supposed links between humans and apes presented to the public as proof of evolution in the past, which have been proved wrong or at least highly unlikely. The opening statement has been quoted, and the supposed links listed and addressed. I have listed the supposed links, the info regarding there true nature may be observed at the link provided. As my previous post suggests, a great many evolutionists take great liberties in stating there assumptions as facts prematurely. This is just a tiny example of what goes on, on a much larger scale regarding the same.
Archaeological Forgeries
There is no fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. Despite the fact that no complete "transitional form" fossil has ever been found, the theory of evolution is taught more than ever in classrooms around the world. We keep finding more and more huge burial sites of dinosaurs, which are supposedly 65 million years old, yet we cannot find a single skeleton of a half man, half ape, pre-human being. Such fossils should stand a much better chance of being preserved, since they would only be maybe tens of thousands of years old, not millions as with the dinosaurs (in the evolutionist's timeline). Now why do you suppose this is? Maybe simply because evolution never happened? If evolution were true, we would find at least thousands of skeletons of the "transitional" skeletons shown in the evolutionist drawing below. Now if I were a believer in evolution, I would need to seriously question my faith in the absence of any such skeletons.
But since there aren't any such skeletons, one of the interesting methods evolutionists employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find.
Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of 'finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax.
Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.
Piltdown Man...........................
Nebraska Man.............................
Ota Benga......................
Java Man - Pekin Man.......................
Neanderthal Man.........................
The Taung Child.....................
Ramapithecus........................
Australopithecines........................
Lucy......................
Ardi.......................
: Alan Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 07:59:20
So because his claim is way out in left field, does that apply to all of science? Ken Ham is every bit as much a whack job if you want specifics about creationists. Dinosaurs and humans did NOT coexist, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, but nutty Ham claims they were on the ark ::frown::
They did exist together. You simply think the wisdom of fallen humanity is greater than that of scripture. That todays "scientists" have deeper insight than the prophets of God.
The skeletal remains do exist with enough of them preserved to accurately describe the details of their anatomic appearance.
: Amo Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 08:09:17
They did exist together. You simply think the wisdom of fallen humanity is greater than that of scripture. That todays "scientists" have deeper insight than the prophets of God.
No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
hummmm. 40 pages?
I just wanted to remind you guys (both genders) you are about to step on Baptism's toes.
And they said it couldn't be done. heh heh.
: Alan Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 08:11:06
No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
Bla bla bla. Alan said so doesn't equal scientific fact for me or countless others. As with all evolutionary science, there is a great deal of conjecture presented as fact regarding dinosaurs. Time has and will continue to reveal the constant evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, constantly changing and adapting as necessary when that presumed fact is proved wrong over and over again.
My my...according to science the Tibetans INHERITED the EPAS1 gene in the past from some far away relatives.
Since all humans have an EPAS1 gene, likely from H. erectus. However, only Tibetans and a few people in nearby populations have the mutated form that allows them to live at high altitudes successfully. That evolved fairly recently.
That means that the gene existed many generations past.
But the particular allele in Tibetans is mutated and not the same one found in all other humans.
Which means that those people INHERITED it from their ancestors, who INHERITED it from theirs etc etc.
Nope. You just assumed that all alleles are alike.
There is NO PROOF that in this chain of events anyone ACQUIRED the gene.
See above. The mutation is found only in Tibetans and in a small number of people in adjacent populations, almost all of them Han Chinese. So we know it evolved rather recently.
Now everybody in the world has fragments of the EPAS1 gene.
No. Everybody in the world has an EPAS gene. Just not the recent mutated form found in Tibetans
Which simply means that westeners LOST part of the gene, and the Tibetan family kept it.
No. We just have a different version. And it's not the only mutation found in Tibetans:
A gene that controls red blood cell production evolved quickly to enable Tibetans to tolerate high altitudes, a study suggests. The finding could lead researchers to new genes controlling oxygen metabolism in the body.
An international team of researchers compared the DNA of 50 Tibetans with that of 40 Han Chinese and found 34 mutations that have become more common in Tibetans in the 2,750 years since the populations split. More than half of these changes are related to oxygen metabolism.
The researchers looked at specific genes responsible for high-altitude adaptation in Tibetans. "By identifying genes with mutations that are very common in Tibetans, but very rare in lowland populations we can identify genes that have been under natural selection in the Tibetan population," said Professor Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California Berkeley, who took part in the study. "We found a list of 20 genes showing evidence for selection in Tibet - but one stood out: EPAS1."
The gene, which codes for a protein involved in responding to falling oxygen levels and is associated with improved athletic performance in endurance athletes, seems to be the key to Tibetan adaptation to life at high altitude. A mutation in the gene that is thought to affect red blood cell production was present in only 9% of the Han population, but was found in 87% of the Tibetan population.
"It is the fastest change in the frequency of a mutation described in humans," said Professor Nielsen.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude
That is proof of DEVOLUTION
"Evolution" means "change." "Devolution" would mean, "no change." And as you see, the mutation in Tibetans was a change from the earlier forms of the EPAS1 gene.
and not evolution.
As you learned earlier, "evolution" is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is exactly what we have here.
No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
Well, there is this....
(http://quizpug.com/wp-content/uploads/qc-images/558d215facccd.jpg)
And don't forget Onyate man...
Hello. My name is Stefan. My last name is not important, but my story it is. I have a incredible story to tell, which is being hushed up by scientists and goverments all over the world.
Darwin's theory of the evolution of species has been disproved. But everyone is covering it up. I kept some photographs of this event, and now I am telling the world. An American friend is helping me post this story to the internet. It is the only way I could think of to get these amazing facts out before it is too late. I don't know how long I can keep this web cite up. I use my own words so it is my story. Sorry about not perfect english.
It begin when I became visiting grad student to America, from where I was studying at University of Heidelberg. I came to work with my paleontology professor, Dr. Heinschvagel, who is a expert of dinosaur studies. We came to New Mexico in the South West, and worked in the Morrison Formation, over 140 million years old. Every day we would leave the student quarters in Albuquerque, and travel about 70 km north west to the cite.
It was hardly winter there at all. They said this year was dry. And so we worked early in the year, and in late February of 1999, we made a discovery that shakes the world.
We found a fossil of a hominid, being eaten by an allosaurus dinosaur. Look at the picture.
(http://www.nmsr.org/c1.gif)
Of course, it is the impossible in Darwin's theory for hominids to have been lived 140 million years ago. In the 70s, there was talk of a human fossil called "Moab Man" found in dinosaur deposits, also Morrison formation, near Moab of Utah. But this case was controversial because some claimed the human skeleton fell into a crevise in the dinosaur layers. No one can tell, because the remains were taken away, and never tested. And that is what is happening again this time! All the evidence of this incredible find has been taken away. Except for a few photo's which I managed to keep. They had me taking some photographs at the dig, and my camera had a half-shoot roll of film, so I got about 8 shots taken before when I had to change the film. Then, I shoot two more rolls. After that, one of the guards came and made me give him all of the film. He said it would be very bad if I did not coo-perate, that I could be returned to Germany, and I was pretty scared. I gave him the 2 full rolls I shot, and I was so scared and worried that I forgot about the roll that had the 8 shots. When we returned to Albuquerque, I remembered, and hid the films till I returned home. Now my friend has been putting them on the internet so everyone can learn what has happenned, and how they are covering it all up.
The professor said this is not like the Moab man. He said there was no evidence that showed Moab Man was true. But he said our bones of the hominid and the dinosaur were together, in hard sandstone, and that they had to become the fossils at the same time, 140 million years ago, in the Upper Jurassic. The dinosaur is apparently trying to eat the cave-man, and then both became killed in some event. Perhaps the allosaurus choked on his food. We were not able to find the foot bones of the hominid, and the Americans started calling it "Onyate Man" after some local politician. They thought it was funny but I didn't see how. The professor said "Onyate Man" was almost like Homo Erectus, but different in a few features.
This picture shows one of the guards, one of the other students, and Professor Heinschvagel, working on final cleaning before the casting. The guard was named Billy, he said he was in the Marines before this. He kidded around some with the students, but he got real mean when he needed something, like my photos. The girl in the photo was called Pilar P******, or something like that. She is from New Mexico, and she is only a grad student, but also, is a real expert of fossil preparation. I learned greatly working with her.
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
How can you ignore evidence like that?
For Amo:
The above post is a joke. It's a joke.
There wasn't really any Onyate Man. It was a hoax perpetrated by some guys who wanted to have a little fun with the issue.
Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
Kiwi dodges the question:
PROVE that ANY form is "transitional"
No other YE creationist can answer that one, either. That should be a wake-up for you.
We'll just note that you couldn't answer.
Regarding your question; a transitional is any organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups.
Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/pakicetus_nostrils.jpg),(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/aetiocetus_nostrils.jpg),(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/graywhale_nostrils.jpg)
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
Horse evolution tree
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/transition_horse2.gif)
Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.
As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the red
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
: Amo Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 08:30:46
Bla bla bla. Alan said so doesn't equal scientific fact for me or countless others. As with all evolutionary science, there is a great deal of conjecture presented as fact regarding dinosaurs. Time has and will continue to reveal the constant evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, constantly changing and adapting as necessary when that presumed fact is proved wrong over and over again.
Cute, but not one thing has been proven "wrong", as we continually attempt to relay to you and others, science is a progression of data and research, it is NOT a series of theories that will be turned upside down.
: Alan Fri Dec 15, 2017 - 18:16:55
Careful, this will come back at you rofl
And it should, as a few times I heard the word "fact" spewed which shows some here who think they are on the side of "science" are also full of it.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 08:47:24
For Amo:
The above post is a joke. It's a joke.
There wasn't really any Onyate Man. It was a hoax perpetrated by some guys who wanted to have a little fun with the issue.
May be a hoax but it's a typical characteristic of people when genuine facts and evidence cannot substantiate a view. Conspiracy theories have been mentioned in this thread, just as they are mentioned in politics, religion, and a host of other topics that contain multiple views.
The bible does not tell us millions of years ago.........
What trash that is..........
If that were true our GOD would let us know for sure !
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.
And it's not important to salvation.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 20:34:18
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.
And it's not important to salvation.
And neither has the age of the earth anything to do with evolution
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 08:59:16
Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind." Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define. Let's try primates. How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?
And give us your evidence for your belief.
Kiwi dodges the question:
No other YE creationist can answer that one, either. That should be a wake-up for you.
We'll just note that you couldn't answer.
Regarding your question; a transitional is any organism with apomorphic characters of two different groups.
Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/pakicetus_nostrils.jpg),(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/aetiocetus_nostrils.jpg),(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/graywhale_nostrils.jpg)
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
Horse evolution tree
(https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/transition_horse2.gif)
Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.
As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the red
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
Science claims that this
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/19/143519-004-B19FFD4E.jpg)
evolved in to this
(https://noyocenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hump2g.gif)
The sheer number of morphological changes are mind boggling. Only on cellular level millions of changes must have taken place.
Multiply that with the number of biological changes and physical adaptations, and you end up with a speed of evolution that even today should be observable and measurable.
On top of that the fossil record should be littered with intermediate specimen.
Yet, none of this exists. No fossil record and no measurable evolution in today's living specimen.
Besides a nice morphological drawing, and vague claims by evolutionists...not a shred of proof exists.
The question has been posted many times to evolutionists: How many biological, cellular, sociological and habitual changes take place to go from a land dwelling animal to a sea dwelling animal.
No evolutionist has ever dared to answer this question because the sheer number would blow their theory right out of the water.
Pretty good explanation of Pakicetus to Whale evolution here if you care to read.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-whales-evolve-73276956/
Science claims that this
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/19/143519-004-B19FFD4E.jpg)
Evolved to this:
(https://mamblahg.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/whale-evolution.jpg?w=672&h=372&crop=1)
And eventually, to a hole host of other more evolved whales.
It was kind of a surprise because at first all we had was the skull of pakicetus, which looked like that of a primitive whale.
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/pakicetus2.jpg)
Then, the rest of the skeleton was found, with another skull. Turns out it was quite capable of moving about on land.
And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found.
It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 17, 2017 - 13:08:49
Science claims that this
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/19/143519-004-B19FFD4E.jpg)
Evolved to this:
(https://mamblahg.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/whale-evolution.jpg?w=672&h=372&crop=1)
And eventually, to a hole host of other more evolved whales.
It was kind of a surprise because at first all we had was the skull of pakicetus, which looked like that of a primitive whale.
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/pakicetus2.jpg)
Then, the rest of the skeleton was found, with another skull. Turns out it was quite capable of moving about on land.
And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found.
It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists.
It is rather funny how you mislead the reader by posting outdated pictures, and incomplete information.
The Pakicetus in your drawing looks like an aquatic animal and it is drawn in a swimming position with webs between the toes.
It has already been admitted by scientists that Pakicetus was not aquatical, it was a running land dwelling animal.
Your claim "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." is severely exaggerated!
Not a single transition between terrestial animals and aquatic animals have EVER been found.
The gap between them is absolutely huge, and not been filled in by any proof.
For example, to go from a land dwelling creature to a sea dwelling creature, the pelvis must completely change.
The support for weight carrying hind legs must disappear and the pelvis must twist.
Not a single specimen of such a transition has ever been found, even though such a transition must have been massive, spread over many generations in numerous stages.
In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.
Science still has not explained that.
So the information you post is misleading, outdated and incomplete.
You jump from "here we have a skeleton of a Pakicetus" to "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." without informing that these new discoveries are not transitional whatsoever. Scientist find the same animal over and over again. What they do not find are transitions....and there should be numerous.
The whale series is not at all difficult for creationists to refute. The main reason is that science itself has put it under scrutiny again, and some even admit it is wrong.
There are still a few knucklehead evolutionists (outdated people like you) that defend the series by introducing more speculated intermediates based on a handful of bone fragments, but all that is left are only some scientists who hope that someday intermediates will be found.
Wishful thinking, that's all whats left of the theory.
Finally, about what Dr. Kurt Wise said, please post your source.
You can make any claim you want about any scientist, if you do not post the source your claim is without merit.
It is rather funny how you mislead the reader by posting outdated pictures, and incomplete information.
The Pakicetus in your drawing looks like an aquatic animal and it is drawn in a swimming position with webs between the toes.
It looks just like the one you posted. Only it's in a swimming posture.
It has already been admitted by scientists that Pakicetus was not aquatical, it was a running land dwelling animal.
The Pakicetus had a very long and robust tail, and it's four legs had bones which suggested it was semi- aquatic.
https://jodyneilson.wikispaces.com/Pakicetus
Your claim "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found." is severely exaggerated!
You've been badly misled.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XXNPKIfWeLU/T6gOUEh0TII/AAAAAAAAIcQ/EfdbbRpj_-4/s1600/Ambulocetus2.jpg)
Ambulocetus is even more adapted to aquatic conditions, and while it could walk on land, it is more adapted to the water.
(https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/_/rsrc/1470265683673/by-group/eutheria/cetacea/archaeoceti/rodhocetus/Rodhocetus_skel.jpg)
Rhodocetus could probably still move on land a little, but is more adapted to water than Ambulocetus.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/dorudon.gif)
Dorudon was the one of the first whales completely unable to walk on land. Notice that the nostrils of these transitional forms are slowly moving backwards from the front of the snout.
Notice also the trend to larger and more robust tails in a transition from used feet to using the tail for swimming.
Not a single transition between terrestial animals and aquatic animals have EVER been found.
See above. You've been misled about that.
For example, to go from a land dwelling creature to a sea dwelling creature, the pelvis must completely change.
As you see, in whales it became vestigial.
Not a single specimen of such a transition has ever been found, even though such a transition must have been massive, spread over many generations in numerous stages.
And now you know how.
In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.
That's absurd. We have mammals like otters and polar bears that can do both. Ambulocetus, for example, was primarily adapted to water, but could still walk.
You jump from "here we have a skeleton of a Pakicetus" to "And not long after, a series of transitional whales were found."
See above. I left out a good number of them, just showing you the general trend. Would you like to see some more? The transitional forms are numberous and gradual.
The whale series is not at all difficult for creationists to refute.
Creationists familiar with the issue disagree with you.
Finally, about what Dr. Kurt Wise said, please post your source.
Sure...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich
(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]
followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes, and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.
That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus
with the largest hind legs; Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;
Prozeuglodonwith 6 inch hindlegs;
and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;
the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;
and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.
This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise,
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional FormsCEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 17, 2017 - 22:08:39
The Pakicetus had a very long and robust tail, and it's four legs had bones which suggested it was semi- aquatic.
Ambulocetus is even more adapted to aquatic conditions, and while it could walk on land, it is more adapted to the water.
(https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/_/rsrc/1470265683673/by-group/eutheria/cetacea/archaeoceti/rodhocetus/Rodhocetus_skel.jpg)
Rhodocetus could probably still move on land a little, but is more adapted to water than Ambulocetus.
A whole lot of speculation and imagination and guesses here! "probably","suggested", etc.
Notice also the trend to larger and more robust tails in a transition from used feet to using the tail for swimming.
There are no "transitional form"
and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.
So you admit there WAS a flood?
This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. [/color]
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995
So? one persons OPINION. I am sure you discredit anything this person says that you DONT agree with! Plus, there IS no "fossil record". It exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks
Since you are too scared to present ONE piece of evidence for evolution or indeed to define the word "evolution" or "kind", let me put words in your mouth and see if i am correct.
You think that fossils in the ground prove evolution.
Yes or no?
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 16, 2017 - 20:34:18
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.
And it's not important to salvation.
Your first statement is a lie.
Your second statement is false because it means you think the Bible is NOT correct.
Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?)
The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a "Tertiary" lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)? Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267.
What is Wrong with Evolution Theory?
Bible Reading: Isaiah 40:21-31; Genesis 1:1-31 'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools' Rom.1:22 Law of cause and effect: 'Every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.' Heb 3:4
Evolution denies any existence or involvement of God in i) Designing and creating the universe,
ii) Designing and creating life on earth, iii) Judging the wicked world by Noah's flood in 2418BC. It is atheistic, unscientific and totally biased against God. Most schools and universities teach evolution as fact.
It attributes the origin of the universe to a Big Bang theory, the origin of DNA and cells to random chemical processes and the origin of life and new species of life to random natural selection processes.
Since no scientist can produce life in a laboratory, life certainly could not evolve by accident. Evolutionists problem is dishonesty, unwillingness to be morally accountable to God as creator and judge.
Aim: Consider these reasons to reject evolution as bad science and a lying hoax. It is disproven by:
1. Jesus taught creation "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6
2. 7 day week is based on 7 days of creation week. "In 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" Ex20:11
3. Oxygen in the atmosphere would oxidize (break down) any amino acids forming to evolve life.
4. Man's recorded history only goes back to 2500 BC agreeing well with the Noah's flood of 2418 BC.
Did man live for 3 million years, leave no records, then suddenly build pyramids and cities about 2400BC?
5. Sudden appearance of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers deposited in Noah's flood.
6. No beneficial mutations have given a new species. How do you change the number of chromosomes?
7. No transitional fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution. 8. Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems go from order to disorder. Ev claims the opposite.
9. Complexity of sexual reproduction, brains & eyes can't be explained by evolution's random processes.
10. Genesis 1:1 shows space, mass, time universe 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'
11. Oldest trees are 4500 years old being planted just after Noah's flood. Evolution requires older trees.
12. Archaeology always confirms the Bible record as without error. Bible's accuracy extends to creation.
13. Anti God bias of evolution wants to remove God from creation and flood, ignoring many evidences.
14. A computer without software will never work. Neither will chemicals without software evolve life.
15. Evidence of a young earth is ignored: i) Atmospheric helium takes 11,600 years to reach todays level
ii) Meteorite dust on earth & moon would be 1 million times greater if age is 6 billion years or 6000 years.
iii) Dinosaur DNA shows that dinosaurs lived recently. DNA cannot survive 70 million years.
iv) No coral is older than 4500 years. v) Sun shrinks 5 feet/hour. 50,000 years ago it would boil oceans.
vi) Argon 36 and Krypton 84 gases on the moon would accumulate to present level in 10,000 years.
vii) Ocean concentrations of 30 out of 51 elements accumulate to todays levels in 10,000 years. Si 8000 yr
viii) Juvenile water. 1 cubic mile of water is added yearly to 340 million cubic miles of ocean. Ocean age?
16. Misplaced fossils: i) Hammer in 300 million year old limestone in Texas. ii) Human and dinosaur footprints in Texas, Turkmenia. iii) Iron pot in 300 million yr coal in Oklahoma. iv) Cave art of dinosaurs.
17. Flood traditions from 12 countries confirm the Bible's flood account. Epic of Gilgamesh, India, China
18. Geological column records 1 year destruction of life in the flood, not 500 million yr evolution of life.
19. Sorting of simple fossils in lower strata to complex fossils higher as more mobile animals flee higher.
20. Dinosaur extinction is easily explained by the flood, but impossible for evolution to explain.
21. Immense fossil graveyards are explained by the flood. 800 billion fossils off Sth Africa, Gobi, Utah.
22. Vulcanism. "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11). Volcanic ash condensed the water canopy causing 40 days rain.
This lava flow caused India's 3 Km deep Deccan plateau. 10,000+ land and sea volcanoes caused ice age.
23. Ice Age. Cooling from volcanic dust darkening the sky in the flood, caused the ice age after the flood. "Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" Job 38:29.
24. Louis Pasteur proved that all life came from life, never from non-life, as evolution claims.
25. Mathematical probability laws of proteins and DNA forming by chance are zero.
26. Molecular biology shows how complex the cell is (like a big city), that it could not form by chance.
27. Gregor Mendel proved that characteristics passed from parent to offspring by mathematical laws, not by chance random processes in what Darwin called "blending inheritance".
28. If evolution could produce a body, it would be dead. How did life, a soul and consciousness evolve?
29. Dating methods giving millions of years are based on false assumptions.
Since you are too scared to present ONE piece of evidence for evolution
I showed you that it's directly observed:
or indeed to define the word "evolution"
I showed you that the scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
or "kind"
"Kind" is not a scientific term. It's a creationist term. So up to you to define it. Since all known life on Earth is genetically related, that would indicate all living things are of one "kind."
let me put words in your mouth
Maybe it's time you stopped trying to do that, and started trying to put together a case for your new doctrines.
You think that fossils in the ground prove evolution.
Predicted transitional forms in the fossil record are (as YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says) are strong evidence for evolution. Even stronger, there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.
However, "proof" is not part of science. We merely accumulate evidence until it's sufficiently strong to make doubt foolish.
Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.
And it's not important to salvation.
Your first statement is a lie.
It's just a fact. No where does the Bible say how old the Earth is.
Your second statement is false because it means you think the Bible is NOT correct.
No, I'm pointing out that your new interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.
Ah, the "Gish Gallop." Toss out so many fake objections that the creationist hopes scientists won't be able to get to them all. Fortunately, it'a message board with unlimited time, and I'm a very patient guy.
1. Jesus taught creation "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6
In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there. Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.
2. 7 day week is based on 7 days of creation week. "In 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" Ex20:11
It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days" (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time", "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic. Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.
3. Oxygen in the atmosphere would oxidize (break down) any amino acids forming to evolve life.
Prior to photosynthetic plants, the Earth was anoxic. The reduced iron formations demonstrate this went on for nearly a billion years, long after prokaryotes appeared on Earth.
4. Man's recorded history only goes back to 2500 BC agreeing well with the Noah's flood of 2418 BC.
The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.
Did man live for 3 million years, leave no records, then suddenly build pyramids and cities about 2400BC?
Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented. And the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"
5. Sudden appearance of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers deposited in Noah's flood.
Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.
6. No beneficial mutations have given a new species. How do you change the number of chromosomes?
Many, many favorable mutations have been observed. And speciations have been directly observed. Chromosomes are just strings of genes. The number can change by fusion of two chromosomes or by splitting one into two. Both have been observed to happen.
7. No transitional fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution.
Let's test that belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Hint: there are still a few for which the transitional is not known. You could get lucky.
8. Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems go from order to disorder.
No. It says that without inputs of energy from an outside source, entropy will increase. In many cases, entropy will increase order. If you'd like to learn more about this, we can talk about it. This is why plants can grow from seeds, new species evolve, and so on.
9. Complexity of sexual reproduction, brains & eyes can't be explained by evolution's random processes.
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. If you doubt this, pick one of those and I'll show you.
10. Genesis 1:1 shows space, mass, time universe 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'
Which is consistent with evolutionary theory.
11. Oldest trees are 4500 years old being planted just after Noah's flood. Evolution requires older trees.
What's your evidence that the lifetime of trees is the same as the age of the Earth?
12. Archaeology always confirms the Bible record as without error. Bible's accuracy extends to creation.
The Bible is God's word. But since it's consistent with evolution, that's no problem for science.
13. Anti God bias of evolution wants to remove God from creation and flood, ignoring many evidences.
In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. You've been misled on that one.
14. A computer without software will never work. Neither will chemicals without software evolve life.
God says the Earth brought forth life. You should believe Him.
15. Evidence of a young earth is ignored: i) Atmospheric helium takes 11,600 years to reach todays level
Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space. The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.
ii) Meteorite dust on earth & moon would be 1 million times greater if age is 6 billion years or 6000 years.
At the present influx of meteors and meteorites, it's about the correct amount. If you'd like to learn how we know, start we can talk about it.
iii) Dinosaur DNA shows that dinosaurs lived recently. DNA cannot survive 70 million years.
"Jurassic Park" was just a movie. There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.
iv) No coral is older than 4500 years.
Cores drilled out of Enitiwok atoll showed nearly a mile of coral. At the fastest rate, the atoll had been growing for hundreds of thousands of years.
v) Sun shrinks 5 feet/hour. 50,000 years ago it would boil oceans.
The surface of the sun undergoes violent changes on a daily basis, but a group of astronomers has found that the size of our nearest star has been perplexingly constant in recent years.
The new study shows that the sun's diameter has changed by less than one part in a million over the last 12 years. The sun's width today is a steady 932,057 miles (1,500,000 km) across, the researchers found.
"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).
"This constancy is baffling, given the violence of the changes we see every day on the sun's surface and the fluctuations that take place over an 11-year solar cycle," Kuhn said.
https://www.space.com/8405-sun-unchanging-size-baffles-scientists.html
vi) Argon 36 and Krypton 84 gases on the moon would accumulate to present level in 10,000 years.
Gases generated on the moon leave the moon because of it's low gravity. That's why there's almost no atmosphere on the moon.
vii) Ocean concentrations of 30 out of 51 elements accumulate to todays levels in 10,000 years. Si 8000 yr
The equilibrium of elements in sea water varies widely. If you use sodium in seawater as a measure, you'd come up with an estimate of a few hundred years for the age of the Earth.
viii) Juvenile water. 1 cubic mile of water is added yearly to 340 million cubic miles of ocean. Ocean age?
One word. Evaporation.
16. Misplaced fossils: i) Hammer in 300 million year old limestone in Texas. ii)
Found in a crevice. It is either 300 million years old, or it was dropped there.
Human and dinosaur footprints in Texas,
Fakes debunked by YE creationists themselves. If you want to learn about that, start another thread.
17. Flood traditions from 12 countries confirm the Bible's flood account. Epic of Gilgamesh, India, China
Either there was one big flood, or devastating floods have happened in a lot of places.
18. Geological column records 1 year destruction of life in the flood, not 500 million yr evolution of life.
Nope. Even most YE creationists now admit this is false.
Sorting of simple fossils in lower strata to complex fossils higher as more mobile animals flee higher.
So the swift sloths outran the slow velociraptors and the speedy oaks outran the slow pine trees... really?
20. Dinosaur extinction is easily explained by the flood, but impossible for evolution to explain.
No dinosaurs are in the fossil record above the K-T boundary, marking the impact of a huge meteorite.
21. Immense fossil graveyards are explained by the flood. 800 billion fossils off Sth Africa, Gobi, Utah.
They are found in the deltas of long-lived rivers, where bodies were carried downstream and deposited when the stream slowed. If all the animals in the South African Karoo formation lived at one time, there would have been standing room only.
22. Vulcanism. "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11). Volcanic ash condensed the water canopy causing 40 days rain.
The sky is not actually a dome with windows in it. And there could not be enough water in the atmosphere to do that.
This lava flow caused India's 3 Km deep Deccan plateau. 10,000+ land and sea volcanoes caused ice age.
The Deccan Traps are over a hundred million years older than the ice age. And such release of lava, unlike Plinian eruptions, does not shoot ash into the sky.
23. Ice Age. Cooling from volcanic dust darkening the sky in the flood, caused the ice age after the flood. "Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" Job 38:29.
See above.
24. Louis Pasteur proved that all life came from life, never from non-life, as evolution claims.
Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. However, God says life came from non-living matter. You should believe Him.
25. Mathematical probability laws of proteins and DNA forming by chance are zero.
Darwin's discovery was that it didn't happen by chance.
26. Molecular biology shows how complex the cell is (like a big city), that it could not form by chance.
See above.
27. Gregor Mendel proved that characteristics passed from parent to offspring by mathematical laws, not by chance random processes
Actually, the genes you get are randomly determined. That was Mendel's discovery.
28. If evolution could produce a body, it would be dead.
Show us your evidence for that.
How did life, a soul and consciousness evolve?
Not part of evolutionary theory. But God gives you a soul directly, not by natural processes.
Dating methods giving millions of years are based on false assumptions.
Recently, argon/argon testing accurately called the age of the flow that buried Pompeii. So that's wrong, too.
Well, that was fun, sort of...
Evolution ___________________ BUNK !!!!!!
: grams Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 05:52:22
Evolution ___________________ BUNK !!!!!!
Do you have something to contribute here grams other than conjecture? Some reasonable discussion would be nice and don't forget to open your mind if you'd like to enter the discussion, it helps with understanding ::smile::
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 17, 2017 - 22:08:39
At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995
As I said, you are misrepresenting both scientific art as well as scientific quotes.
Kurt Wise said:
"At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales."You made it out to be this:
"It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists"First of all it is not the whale series as represented by evolutionists that causes difficult challenges. That series has already been dismissed because it is neither plausible nor possible.
It is the creationists own theory that causes problems with the fossil records. Perhaps the creationist theory needs to be adjusted. It is Kurt Wise critically looking at his own theory.
You get the difference, right?
Nothing the evolutionist theory brings forth is challenging to a creationist, because the principal of it is wrong. There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.
But let me put this in a perspective even you can understand.
A rabbit lies dead on the street.
You say: it was zapped by UFO's
I say: it was run over by a motor cycle.
Now I realize that the tire prints are too wide for a bike, so I say that my theory has not good explanation for the size of the prints.
That does not mean that your theory is correct, or that I even remotely admit or suggest that UFO's zapped the rabbit. All I am saying is that my theory is insufficient.
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:21:34
A rabbit lies dead on the street.
You say: it was zapped by UFO's
I say: it was run over by a motor cycle.
Now I realize that the tire prints are too wide for a bike, so I say that my theory has not good explanation for the size of the prints.
That does not mean that your theory is correct, or that I even remotely admit or suggest that UFO's zapped the rabbit. All I am saying is that my theory is insufficient.
If your theory is insufficient it also begs for another explanation, given the severity of the incident, researches would work diligently to find the most plausible explanation rather than rest on the unknown evidence at the time of the finding.
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:21:34There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.
And you know that how? The Bible certainly makes no such claim.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 17, 2017 - 22:08:39
In the meantime, the intermediate species, because of the transition could neither walk nor swim.
That's absurd. We have mammals like otters and polar bears that can do both. Ambulocetus, for example, was primarily adapted to water, but could still walk.
You are not addressing the point.
Animals have either a pelvis that makes it a land dwelling animal, or a pelvis that makes is aquatic.
What you do have are animals like the polar bear and the otter, but their skeletal structure makes them able to walk. They are just good swimmers.
A transition between the two however would completely fail.
Once the pelvis turns, it will no longer support the hind legs and the animal can no longer walk. It may perhaps be able to drag itself through the mud, but since it is neither terrestrial nor aquatic, it will be unable to support itself in either habitat.
It is exactly that intermediate species that cannot be found in the fossil record. A species where the transition from terrestrial to aquatic is half formed.
It does not exist. The fossil record only shows species that are either terrestrial or aquatic, nothing in between.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:37:49
And you know that how? The Bible certainly makes no such claim.
Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.
: Alan Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:34:56
If your theory is insufficient it also begs for another explanation, given the severity of the incident, researches would work diligently to find the most plausible explanation rather than rest on the unknown evidence at the time of the finding.
Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:45:57
Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.
And now we know rofl
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:47:16
Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.
No, it's entirely relevant, inconclusive evidence will be replaced with conclusive evidence via research, data, and facts. Sooner or later we
will know what killed the rabbit.
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:45:57Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.
No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:53:29
No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.
I think I do. What makes you qualified to participate in this thread?
: Alan Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:52:31
No, it's entirely relevant, inconclusive evidence will be replaced with conclusive evidence via research, data, and facts. Sooner or later we will know what killed the rabbit.
Some things will never be known. The arrogance of humanism should be something we think about.
I find the idea that pakicetus evolved into a whale to be fundamentally retarded.
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 07:30:08I find the idea that pakicetus evolved into a whale to be fundamentally retarded.
Well then, I guess that definitely settles that idea.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 07:38:20
Well then, I guess that definitely settles that idea.
If you were smart, you would agree with me, for I agree with God.
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 07:42:20If you were smart, you would agree with me, for I agree with God.
Spoken like the Pope.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 07:46:09
Spoken like the Pope.
I don't require your worship and adoration. Just your agreement.
You are not addressing the point.
I already showed you your mistake.
Animals have either a pelvis that makes it a land dwelling animal, or a pelvis that makes is aquatic.
No, that's an error. Seals and some fossil whales have pelvises that make it difficult for them to walk, but they could. On the other hand, the fossil whale Ambulocetus has a pelvis that works like that of an otter, and it could walk without difficulty.
Seals have a lot of difficulty getting around on land, but sea lions have less difficulty because they are somewhat less adapted to swimming than seals.
A transition between the two however would completely fail.
Sea lions are transitional between seals and land animals, and they are very successful.
Once the pelvis turns, it will no longer support the hind legs and the animal can no longer walk. It may perhaps be able to drag itself through the mud, but since it is neither terrestrial nor aquatic, it will be unable to support itself in either habitat.
Seals do just fine. I don't understand why this is difficult for you.
It is exactly that intermediate species that cannot be found in the fossil record.
I just showed you an entire series of them. As YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the whale series of transitional forms is a serious problem for creationism.
A species where the transition from terrestrial to aquatic is half formed.
Like sea lions or Ambulocetus.
It does not exist.
As you now see, they do. Even your fellow YE creationists admit it.
4WD writes:
No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.
AVZ replies:
I think I do.
Just for the record, then, what are the four points of Darwin's theory, and how has that theory been modified by the discoveries of Mendel, Kimura, and Gould? Tell us about it.
What makes you qualified to participate in this thread?
Degrees in biology and in systems with a focus on biological systems. A lifetime spent studying and teaching biology.
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. vol. 9 no. 2, 1995
As I said, you are misrepresenting both scientific art as well as scientific quotes.
Well, let's talk about it. I think you've messed up here.
Kurt Wise said: "At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales."
You made it out to be this: "It's why YE creationist Dr. Kurt wise notes that the whale series is an especially difficult challenge for creationists"
See above. That's what he said.
Perhaps the creationist theory needs to be adjusted. It is Kurt Wise critically looking at his own theory.
And as I pointed out, he concedes that the whale series is an especially difficult problem for creationists.
There never was, there never is and there never will be evolution.
As you now realize, it's directly observed. Remember what the scientific definition of biological evolution is: "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
But let me put this in a perspective even you can understand.
The dumb old Barbarian is grateful.
A rabbit lies dead on the street.
A YE creationist says: "it was zapped by UFO's"
A scientist says, "the evidence shows that it was run over by a motor cycle."
The YE creationist depends on his belief in unobservable events, which don't fit the evidence.
The scientist depends on the evidence showing what actually happened.
Spoken like the Pope.
Not quite. The Pope knows better than to take an
ex cathedra position on evolution. It's a scientific issue, without an theological impact. So even if you're a YE creationist, you can still be a Christian, and your salvation is no less likely for it.
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 08:32:27
I don't require your worship and adoration. Just your agreement.
You, like the Pope, have neither the authority nor the power to require anything of me.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 09:56:33
You, like the Pope, have neither the authority nor the power to require anything of me.
I guess you would rather disagree with God.
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 09:57:33
I guess you would rather disagree with God.
How have you managed to slip that into this discussion? ::crackup::
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 09:57:33
I guess you would rather disagree with God.
No, and I don't.
I guess you would rather disagree with God.
Perhaps the most common religious expression in the history of man is, "God is on my side."
And for most or all those of us here, He is. When I had small children, I was always on their side. Doesn't mean I agreed with them on whatever they wanted, though.
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 08:38:10
Sea lions are transitional between seals and land animals, and they are very successful.
Transitional? How can something be a transitional form when all three are still alive? Do we see them changing? NO. of course, we need that secret ingredient, huh? TIME
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 04:20:10
I showed you that the scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
I just googled the definition. "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
Notice, the words "kinds" and "believed". LOL.
Some peoples' definition of "evolution" is changes within species. ie: speciation. We do not deny that speciation occurs. So, if you use THAT definition of "evolution" then yay, we agree.
"Kind" is not a scientific term. It's a creationist term. So up to you to define it. Since all known life on Earth is genetically related, that would indicate all living things are of one "kind."
Ok, so we never hear "scientists" using the term? LOL.
Maybe it's time you stopped trying to do that, and started trying to put together a case for your new doctrines.
Well, maybe you should actually stay on track and answer questions?
Predicted transitional forms in the fossil record are (as YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says) are strong evidence for evolution. Even stronger, there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.
But the "fossil record" exists nowhere except in the textbooks.
However, "proof" is not part of science. We merely accumulate evidence until it's sufficiently strong to make doubt foolish.
: 4WD Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:53:29
No disrespect intended, but I strongly suspect that you have neither the technical nor biological expertise to make such a statement.
And you DO?
You have the "expertise"?
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:47:16
Thats irrelevant.
I am addressing the point that Barbarian is both misquoting and misapplying Kurt Wise's statement.
Maybe thats all he/she has?
: AVZ Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 06:45:57
Because evolution is technically and biologically impossible. It does not happen because it cannot happen.
And that's why it has never been observed, and it will never be observed.
AMEN!
Changes within a kind happens.
ie: we get different breeds of cows and dogs. We dont call them different KINDS.
Yet evolution states that all animals AND plants somehow came from a Primordial soup.
"The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into the first species on Earth."
how wacky can you get!
And they at us when we say God got it right first time in the beginning!
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 05:11:58
In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there. Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.
That is NOT what the text says. see how you have to ADD to the Bible to make it fit your false interpretation?
It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days" (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time", "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic. Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.
Dont you mean ""Yom" CAN mean "period of time" but not always" ?
Notice how God says "THE first day, THE second day, etc." to show us that He meant a literal 24 hour day.
Unless you are saying He told the jews to work the land for many LONG PERIODS of times and rest for one LONG PERIOD of time?
How could plants which were created BEFORE the sun survive for LONG PERIODS of time if God didnt mean a 24 hour day?
The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.
Oh, is that all? So less than 7,000 years ago? Makes you think. Well, SOME of us.
Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented. And the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"
hieroglyphics can be classed as "writing". I see two different types of structures. doesnt mean they are related any more than a plane that has an engine, doors, windows and wheels are related to cars which have engines, doors, windows and wheels.
Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.
Assuming your dating methods are accurate. I think the sheer volume of evidence prove they don't.
Many, many favorable mutations have been observed.
Do they remain the same KIND of animal? No-one disputes that "mutations" happen.
In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. You've been misled on that one.
Oh? Did darwin have any degrees from accredited agencies? You know, the same thing evolutionists ask whether scientists that support creation if they have.
God says the Earth brought forth life. You should believe Him.
He then said that what was created "good". Can't be good if He didnt get it right first time. That would be a retarded God that I for one wouldn't worship.
Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space. The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.
And has that "observed rate" ALWAYS been the same rate? You are ASSUMING it has been.
There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.
yes, i think there has. You know, fossilised dinosaurs with still some tissue on it?
"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).
Is that why it is COOLING down? And for that matter, the moon has been moving away. Now, if we extrapolate these movements back billions of years, whoa!
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 04:22:13
Barbarian observes:
The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is, nor should it, unless God finds that knowing how old it is, is important to salvation.
And it's not important to salvation.
It's just a fact. No where does the Bible say how old the Earth is.
No, I'm pointing out that your new interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.
And YOUR interpretation IS correct?
: KiwiChristian Mon Dec 18, 2017 - 21:49:40
Maybe thats all he/she has?
Don't comment on things that are over your head.
: Alan Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 08:59:54
Don't comment on things that are over your head.
Everyone here has commented on things that are over their head, unless someone here understands all the math, and all the science, and all the theology perfectly.
I know no one here does. And where understanding is missing, faith is employed.
Argument reminds me of Nacho and Esqueleto from Nacho Libre.
(http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/nacho.jpg)
Barbaraian observes:
In Genesis 1:1, God explicitly says what is there at the beginning of creation, and male and female are not there. Jesus meant from the beginning of the creation of humans.
That is NOT what the text says.
Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
See how you have to ADD to the Bible to make it fit your false interpretation? Maybe you should read it, and see what else is in there.
Barbarian regarding a seven day week.
It was intended to be symbolic of creation, as the "days" (actually "Yom", meaning "always", "period of time", "in my day", etc.) in Genesis are symbolic. Moreover, it was used by the Sumerians, before God spoke to Abraham.
Dont you mean ""Yom" CAN mean "period of time" but not always" ? No, it can mean "always."
How could plants which were created BEFORE the sun survive for LONG PERIODS of time if God didnt mean a 24 hour day?
Or it could be as Christians have always known, that the "days" are symbolic, not literal days.
Barbarian observes:
The first writing goes back to about 3400 BC, and that only tells us when writing was invented, not how old the Earth is.
Oh, is that all? So less than 7,000 years ago?
Yep. But as you just learned, that doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth.
Men built large stone monuments long before writing was invented. And the pyramids didn't suddenly appear; they were developed from smaller monuments called "mastabas"
hieroglyphics can be classed as "writing".
The oldest known hieroglyphics (palette of Narmer) is more recent than the oldest Sumerian writing.
I see two different types of structures. doesnt mean they are related
You've been misled.
For thousands of years in the Predynastic Period the dead were buried in shallow oval pits, sometimes surrounded by their personal belongings and covered with sand. The first significant development came when the Egyptians altered the shape of their burial pits from oval to rectangular and roofed the pit with timber (Edwards 20). While no remains of a superstructure has been found, it probably consisted of sand, which could have easily blown away revealing tomb goods to any potential grave robbers (Edwards 21). In the beginning of the dynastic period the kings of Egypt overcame this issue by constructing a mud-brick superstructure over their burial pit (Edwards 21) which is known today as a mastaba, named so for their resemblance to the brick benches outside houses in modern Egyptian villages (Fakhry 3)
(http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/mastabashepseskaf10.jpg)
For thousands of years in the Predynastic Period the dead were buried in shallow oval pits, sometimes surrounded by their personal belongings and covered with sand. The first significant development came when the Egyptians altered the shape of their burial pits from oval to rectangular and roofed the pit with timber (Edwards 20). While no remains of a superstructure has been found, it probably consisted of sand, which could have easily blown away revealing tomb goods to any potential grave robbers (Edwards 21). In the beginning of the dynastic period the kings of Egypt overcame this issue by constructing a mud-brick superstructure over their burial pit (Edwards 21) which is known today as a mastaba, named so for their resemblance to the brick benches outside houses in modern Egyptian villages (Fakhry 3).]
...Imhotep chose for King Djoser the site on which his pyramid would be constructed, at Saqqara, near the early mastabas of the officials noted above (Edwards 34). Dating ca. 2680 B.C.E (Aldred 1998 46), the pyramid is thought to have originally been planned as a mastaba which underwent six different stages in planning that would itself lead to a transition from mastaba to pyramid.
(http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/pyramidevolution11.jpg)
Barbarian observes:
Complex multicellular life existed in the Ediacaran, many millions of years before the Cambrian.
Assuming your dating methods are accurate. I think the sheer volume of evidence prove they don't.
That's the thing about reality. It keeps right on going, even if you don't believe it:
The Ediacaran (/ˌiːdiˈækərən/; formerly Vendian) biota consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms that lived during the Ediacaran Period (ca. 635–542 Mya). Trace fossils of these organisms have been found worldwide, and represent the earliest known complex multicellular organisms.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota
Barbarian observes:
Many, many favorable mutations have been observed.
Do they remain the same KIND of animal?
Sometimes. Usually, the organisms with the favorable mutations just become a fitter kind than before.
No-one disputes that "mutations" happen.
And now you realize that favorable mutations happen.
Barbarian observes:
In his book, Darwin suggested that God just created the first living things. You've been misled on that one.
Oh? Did darwin have any degrees from accredited agencies?
There were no university accrediting agencies in those days. However, he was elected to the Royal Society, which was the only recognized accrediting agency for scientists in that time in England.
You know, the same thing evolutionists ask whether scientists that support creation if they have.
Yep. Darwin was indeed accredited, unlike most creationists.
Barbarian observes:
God says the Earth brought forth life. You should believe Him.
He then said that what was created "good". Can't be good if He didnt get it right first time.
He created evolution, so it's surely good.
Barbarian observes:
Helium, being a very light gas, escapes into space. The amount in the atmosphere is the amount you would expect to see, if it was leaving at the observed rate.
And has that "observed rate" ALWAYS been the same rate?
Assuming gravity has always been here. The evidence shows that it has. If it wasn't, the rotation of the Earth would have torn itself apart long ago.
Barbarian chuckles:
There is no recovered dinosaur DNA.
yes, i think there has.
Show us a checkable source for that. Nothing in the literature. "Jurassic Park" was just a movie; it's not real.
You know, fossilised dinosaurs with still some tissue on it?
So far, no tissues or even intact cells. Some organic molecules, like heme and collagen, but no tissue. If they found tissue, we would indeed have the DNA. But no such thing to date.
"The sun is remarkably constant," lead researcher Jeff Kuhn, the associate director of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "We're measuring that the diameter changes by less than a kilometer (0.62 miles).
Is that why it is COOLING down?
It's not cooling. The solar output is in a current minimum. That means more thermal energy is being retained in the Sun, and less of it is being lost currently.
And for that matter, the moon has been moving away. Now, if we extrapolate these movements back billions of years, whoa!
The moon's recession is being driven by tides. (transfer of kinetic energy from Earth to moon; the subsequent acceleration requires a higher orbit)
So the amount of coastline directly affects the rate of recession. That means during the Pangea era, the recession was slower, and it's faster now.
Fortunately, we can check that by tidal rhythmites, showing how the rotation of the Earth has slowed over time due to the recession of the moon. Would you like to learn about that?
(http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/nacho.jpg)
I feel sorry for someone who "believes in" science. You don't "believe in" science; you accept it or reject it based on evidence.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 10:01:51
(http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/nacho.jpg)
I feel sorry for someone who "believes in" science. You don't "believe in" science; you accept it or reject it based on evidence.
Some measure of belief in science or that said scientists involved are correct is necessary. If you don't realize you can't possibly understand it all, then you are ignorant.
Some measure of belief in science or that said scientists involved are correct is necessary.
Ah, the equivocation issue.
Belief:
a. "I believe in God"
b. "The evidence is why scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs."
c. "I believe I'll have another Guinness."
The trick depends on pretending that these all use "belief" the same way.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 10:40:25
Ah, the equivocation issue.
Belief:
a. "I believe in God"
b. "The evidence is why scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs."
c. "I believe I'll have another Guinness."
The trick depends on pretending that these all use "belief" the same way.
I guess you make no pretense that you are ignorant.
I guess you make no pretense that you are ignorant.
Me? I'm just an old barbarian. And you know how ignorant they are.
: Texas Conservative Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 09:14:29
Everyone here has commented on things that are over their head, unless someone here understands all the math, and all the science, and all the theology perfectly.
The comment was directed at the specific post and ridiculous reply, not the entire discussion.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/29ngz6u.jpg)
Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?
: Jaime Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 12:23:15
Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?
No, not at all.
How is it different?
: Jaime Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 12:23:15
Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?
Science doesn't allow for a woman to concieve without male genetic material.
Science doesn't allow for someone to be dead in a cave for 3 days, and be resurrected.
So extremely similar.
Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years.
: Alan Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 14:17:40
Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years.
Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.
: Texas Conservative Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 15:43:39
Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.
Where have you seen that? I've heard it stated many times myself but that was purely philosophical and not based on any facts whatsoever.
To a Christian, is the resurrection and virgin birth a fact or just a philosophical square peg forced into a round hole?
Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.
Absolutely not. Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not. Science, by its very methodology, is limited to the natural universe, and is unable to say what else might exist.
Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.
But scientists can.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 16:33:30
Absolutely not. Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not. Science, by its very methodology, is limited to the natural universe, and is unable to say what else might exist.
Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.
But scientists can.
And WHEN it (the universe) came into existence OUTSIDE of what scientific methodology might indicate provided it was created in it's present form?
And WHEN it (the universe) came into existence OUTSIDE of what scientific methodology might indicate provided it was created in it's present form?
We can only say what happened just after the beginning. What happened at the moment that the universe began, is forever beyond scientific investigation.
How long ago that was, is at least in principle, accessible to science. The "deep magic" just before that, is out of reach of any method science can use.
: Alan Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 14:17:40
Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years.
Are you saying there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ?
: Alan Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 15:58:10
Where have you seen that? I've heard it stated many times myself but that was purely philosophical and not based on any facts whatsoever.
If Parthenogenesis was a means of reproduction for humans, Jesus would not have been able to be born. If such births were possible, only a female could be conceived. Since males have XY chromosomes, and get the Y from the sperm of the father, we can conclude that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ violates natural law.
There are some non-mammal animal species that can produce offspring via parthenogenesis.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 16:56:37
We can only say what happened just after the beginning.
No, you can't. there are many theories. There is NOT one, universally-accepted theory.
What happened at the moment that the universe began, is forever beyond scientific investigation.
Why? Also, why not teach kids that we dont know and dont give all the crud that cannot be proved? ie: give them ALL the options or none.
How long ago that was, is at least in principle, accessible to science. The "deep magic" just before that, is out of reach of any method science can use.
There is there no date? why are there so many DIFFERENT dates presented?
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 16:33:30
Claim 1: Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not.
Claim 2: Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.
The proper limitation is that science cannot STUDY the supernatural.
Again you are making a statement that is a misrepresentation, you should stop that.
Just an example to make my point:
Imagine a scientist observes a blind man and Jesus passes by.
Jesus speaks to the man, and immediately the man can see.
Your first claim is incorrect. Science has just observed a miracle and can hence come to the conclusion that they do happen.
Science may not be able to explain the miracle, but through scientific observation science is perfectly able to determine if miracles happen or not.
Your claim is false
Your second claim is incorrect. Science just witnessed a miracle but the observation of Jesus and the mode of healing makes it possible for science to say something about the supernatural.
For example science can say that the supernatural has a way to communicate with man because it observed Jesus speaking to a person. It can also conclude that the supernatural has healing abilities. So by observation of the event science is perfectly able to say something about the supernatural.
Your claim is false
The factual claim by science is that it cannot STUDY the supernatural, but by observing the natural science can perfectly come to the conclusion that miracles exist, do happen and what their properties are.
And we are back at Romans 1:20. God has made our natural world in such a way that His presence is observable and undeniable. God even claims that there is no excuse for not coming to this conclusion, that's how obvious He has made it.
In fact Romans 1:20 goes a step further:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."God claims that by observing nature once can clearly see His invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature.
Those are all supernatural properties which you say science cannot observe...and God says it can.
Who do you think we should believe?
The proper limitation is that science cannot STUDY the supernatural.
Rather, science can't say anything about the supernatural.
Again you are making a statement that is a misrepresentation, you should stop that.
You don't understand how science works, or you'd see why.
Just an example to make my point:
Imagine a scientist observes a blind man and Jesus passes by.
Jesus speaks to the man, and immediately the man can see.
Your first claim is incorrect.
Nope. You're confusing science and scientists.
Science has just observed a miracle
No. A scientist observed a miracle, but he could not use the scientific method to say that it was. For example, he could not rule out a conversion disorder, in which a person is psychologically unable to see, and then, accepting help, sees again. He could take it on faith, but he could not demonstrate it with scientific study.
Again, your error is in confusion science, which is a particular method, with scientists, who are quite capable of observing and accepting miracles.
In fact Romans 1:20 goes a step further:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
And again, you are confusing science with scientists. It happens when I'm out by myself in nature, that I can sometimes apprehend both at once, and it's an amazing epiphany. But science can't do that. It's just a method.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 19, 2017 - 22:39:36
Rather, science can't say anything about the supernatural.
You don't understand how science works, or you'd see why.
Nope. You're confusing science and scientists.
No. A scientist observed a miracle, but he could not use the scientific method to say that it was. For example, he could not rule out a conversion disorder, in which a person is psychologically unable to see, and then, accepting help, sees again. He could take it on faith, but he could not demonstrate it with scientific study.
Again, your error is in confusion science, which is a particular method, with scientists, who are quite capable of observing and accepting miracles.
And again, you are confusing science with scientists. It happens when I'm out by myself in nature, that I can sometimes apprehend both at once, and it's an amazing epiphany. But science can't do that. It's just a method.
I give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual
GRAVITYTake for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.
So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it and He also upholds it. That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.
But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.
And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity. Yet it does, libraries full.
Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.
DARK MATTERDark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.
Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.
For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.
Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.
: AVZ Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 01:13:37
I give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual
GRAVITY
Take for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.
So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it and He also upholds it. That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.
But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.
And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity. Yet it does, libraries full.
Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.
We do not know, scientifically, why gravity exists; we just know that it does. However, we do know how gravity works. That is one of the really tremendous results of Einstein's Relativity. God doesn't need to "keep it going". That was simply part of His creation. There is nothing supernatural about gravity. Gravity is purely a natural phenomenon; that is how God created it. For the study of the physical, i.e., the natural, universe to say anything whatever about the supernatural would be oxymoronic. Gravity is no more supernatural than is dirt.
DARK MATTER
Dark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.
Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.
For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.
Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.
Your view that a physical force , i.e., natural force, is supernatural. One more oxymoronic statement from AVZ. And by the way dark matter is not a force. Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.
: 4WD Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 05:49:47
Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.
Or maybe Dark Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Dark_Forces)
: 4WD Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 05:49:47
We do not know, scientifically, why gravity exists; we just know that it does. However, we do know how gravity works. That is one of the really tremendous results of Einstein's Relativity. God doesn't need to "keep it going". That was simply part of His creation. There is nothing supernatural about gravity. Gravity is purely a natural phenomenon; that is how God created it. For the study of the physical, i.e., the natural, universe to say anything whatever about the supernatural would be oxymoronic. Gravity is no more supernatural than is dirt.
Your view that a physical force , i.e., natural force, is supernatural. One more oxymoronic statement from AVZ. And by the way dark matter is not a force. Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.
With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.
For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?
What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.
That is of course circular reasoning, and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon. It could very well be supernatural.
Oh and for your information, there is division over the fact if dark matter contains a force. Some studies seem to show that dark matter continuously interacts with itself.
So what you call oxymoronic, is in fact a respectable scientific hypothesis.
What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.
Unless of course you insist that everything that happens in this universe must have a natural explanation, but then miracles cannot exist.
GODS word does not tell us that the earth is millions of years old !
I believe GOD ::smile:: not man ::frown:: !
: AVZ Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 07:16:58With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.
That is an illogical statement from beginning to end. The definition of a miracle is an observable instantaneous action outside the bounds of the natural. That is simply an observation. Nothing is really proven one way or the other.
For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?
You don't even understand what it means when in Scripture it says that God creates. Look up the meaning of
ex nihilo. Jesus didn't create eyesight in the blind man. He miraculously cured the eyes of the blind man which were not functioning properly.
What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.
That is of course circular reasoning, and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon. It could very well be supernatural.
Another bit of pure nonsense. If something is natural it is by definition not supernatural. And if something is supernatural it is by definition not natural. By definition there is no third option.
Oh and for your information, there is division over the fact if dark matter contains a force. Some studies seem to show that dark matter continuously interacts with itself.
So what you call oxymoronic, is in fact a respectable scientific hypothesis.
Matter, whether dark matter or ordinary (baryonic) matter, does not
contain forces. You obviously are so scientifically challenged you don't even understand the concepts of matter and forces.
What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.
Unless of course you insist that everything that happens in this universe must have a natural explanation, but then miracles cannot exist.
Simply more really ignorant and illogical reasoning. I have never insisted any such thing.
: grams Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 07:45:29
GODS word does not tell us that the earth is millions of years old !
I believe GOD ::smile:: not man ::frown:: !
Grams, God's word does not tell us that combining hydrogen and oxygen forms water either but we know that it does.
: grams Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 07:45:29
GODS word does not tell us that the earth is millions of years old !
I believe GOD ::smile:: not man ::frown:: !
The bible also does not give us a clear indication that the earth is 6000 years old, I also believe God and not the interpretations of man.
Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.
Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?
: Alan Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 08:22:45
Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.
Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?
No.
::tippinghat::
give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual
Well, let's take a look...
GRAVITY
Take for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.
Mass. It's caused by mass. The more mass there is, the more gravity. That's very well documented and measurable. So why is there gravity at all? The demonstrated fact is that gravity is not actually a force, but a curvature of space-time caused by uneven distribution of mass. And yes, that's been experimentally verified. Would you like to learn how?
So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it
So are you. But there's also a nicely naturalistic explanation for the physical you being here, that does not depend on miracles. (except in the sense that St. Augustine used when pointing out that existence itself is miraculous once one realizes that God created all things)
and He also upholds it.
And this is why science works. He does so in a consistent and dependable way such that it is not necessary to consider God when doing science (or plumbing, for that matter). I think it has something to do with His intention that we be free to accept Him or not accept Him as we will.
That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.
If He took His mind from us for even a moment, we would not even exist. But that doesn't mean He pushes the planets and stars around.
But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.
If He intervened and set aside the rules by which His universe works, that's a miracle. Otherwise, it's natural.
And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity.
Hopefully, you now see the flaw in your thinking.
Barbarian observes:
Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.
DARK MATTER
Dark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.
Hence, not miraculous. We know it's natural, because it does obey natural laws.
Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.
No. For example, the duality of light is as of yet unexplained. Sometimes, it has properties of particules (the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein got his only Nobel) and sometimes it has the properties of waves. And weirdly, a single photon in a two-slit experiment will produce an interference pattern as if it was a wave. This doesn't mean that God set aside nature to miraculously cause an interference pattern. It means there's a deeper physical reality that we have not as yet understood.
For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.
Nope. So far, it works according to nature as well. No sign of divine intervention in the universe from that.
Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.
And now you see where your argument failed.
: Texas Conservative Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 08:58:11
No.
::tippinghat::
Why thank you kind sir, ::tippinghat::
With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.
An ancient Ionian Greek philosopher observed:
"People attribute a god to anything they don't understand. But if that were so, there would be an infinity of gods."
For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?
Science can't say. Conversion blindness does happen, and it can be cured psychologically. You need faith to understand a miracle, not science.
What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.
Except in the sense of Augustine; nature is a miracle itself.
That is of course circular reasoning,
Perhaps you don't know what "circular reasoning" means. It does not mean that definitions don't exist. Natural things are those that exist in nature and follow natural laws. Miracles in our world are God stepping in and setting aside those rules for a particular purpose.
and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon.
Turns out, it is.
It could very well be supernatural.
No. It consistently follows natural laws. If it somehow violated natural laws, it would be miraculous.
What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.
No. The duality of light is not potentially miraculous, since it follows regular laws, too. We just don't understand why at this point.
: Alan Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 08:22:45
Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.
Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?
Yes we do know how gravity behaves and what it does, but we do not know what it is.
And if we do not know what it is, then it could be supernatural.
: 4WD Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 08:00:42
The definition of a miracle is an observable instantaneous action outside the bounds of the natural.
A miracle could be outside the bounds of the natural, but it not necessarily is.
Back to the blind man.
When Jesus spoke to the blind man, his eyes started to work again. So that means that either the functionality of the various parts in the eyes returned, or new parts were created.
Either way, we see the process of the growth of sight in embryo's all the time.
When sight is developed in embryo's a normal natural process is being followed. It does not violate any laws of nature.
Now similar with the blind man, his healing could also have followed a normal natural process, identical to that what happens in embryo's.
No laws of nature were necessarily violated.
So a miracle not necessarily is outside the bounds of the natural, and it therefore not necessarily falls outside the bounds of science.
Now if you insist that giving sight to the blind man was a miracle (and I do not disagree), then creating sight in a blind embryo equally is a miracle.
The principle is exactly the same. You have a blind person, and due to a creative process the person gets sight.
: AVZ Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 12:08:22A miracle could be outside the bounds of the natural, but it not necessarily is.
AVZ. it is obvious that you do not even know what a miracle is. Or based on your above comments it is just that you do not know the difference, biblically, between natural and supernatural. If an action is not outside the bounds of the natural, then it is by definition not a miracle.
Yes we do know how gravity behaves and what it does, but we do not know what it is.
It is curvature of space time by uneven distribution of mass. And yes, that was checked and found to be true. Would you like to learn about it?
And if we do not know what it is, then it could be supernatural.
In the American west, native Americans noticed that food took longer to cook at high altitudes. (we know that because water boils at a lower temperature there, cooking takes longer).
They had a different idea. Evil spirits interfere with cooking. And the concentration of evil spirits increases with altitude.
You could likewise argue that gravity is caused by gravity fairies, and gravity fairies always gather near large masses.
But I don't think so.
: 4WD Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 13:56:52
AVZ. it is obvious that you do not even know what a miracle is. Or based on your above comments it is just that you do not know the difference, biblically, between natural and supernatural. If an action is not outside the bounds of the natural, then it is by definition not a miracle.
Then tell me, in the miracle of the blind man being healed for example...which natural law is being violated?
: AVZ Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 17:59:52
Then tell me, in the miracle of the blind man being healed for example...which natural law is being violated?
An instantaneous cure by Jesus. Such is not found in natural law.
: 4WD Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 18:17:19
An instantaneous cure by Jesus. Such is not found in natural law.
There is no natural law that describes a minimum or maximum amount of time to healing. It does not exist.
So I am asking you again: When the blind man was healed, which natural law was violated?
There is no natural law that describes a minimum or maximum amount of time to healing. It does not exist.
So I am asking you again: When the blind man was healed, which natural law was violated?
None whatever, since science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles.
You're still confused about what science does.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 20:51:58
None whatever, since science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles.
You're still confused about what science does.
It is you guys' claim that miracles violate natural law, but you are unable to tell which natural law is violated in the instance of the miracle of the healing of the blind man.
Since you admit that no natural law was violated, then the miracle was not supernatural.
If it is not supernatural, then it can be studied by science
But then again, if the healing was not supernatural..then technically spoken you cant classify it a miracle.
I am not confused what science does and cannot do, you are.
Because if the healing of the blind man did not violate any laws of nature, then it was a natural event, and natural events can be studied by science.
Yet you insist that science cannot...why?
So what are we dealing with here? Was the healing of the blind man a miracle?
If yes, and at the same time no natural laws were violated, then science can study it and come to the conclusion something beyond science was in play and declare the event a miracle. So science is very much able to say something about the supernatural, and determine if something is a miracle.
If no, then you have somewhat of a problem because there are many more instances of miracles in the Bible where no natural laws were violated.
Those will then have to be re-classified as not miracles as well.
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 20:51:58There is no natural law that describes a minimum or maximum amount of time to healing. It does not exist.
So I am asking you again: When the blind man was healed, which natural law was violated?
None whatever, since science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles.
You're still confused about what science does.
You said "
..science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles."
On another post, you said about science, "
It's just a method." ???
That's really confusing, isn't it? But obviously not with regards science, since "
It's just a method.". The scientist, like you, use science, as his method for knowing things, to be able to know the answer to his own questions or of others about certain things. And for scientist, I guess, those would be questions concerning the natural world. Now, science, being a method, is at the employ of any one. I guess you would say that, employing science to get to answer questions pertaining to beyond what is natural, is misapplying the method or will fail, such as when one applies it on questions of the supernatural, the Divine.
Now, you said "
..science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles." Of course, a method, like science, neither denies nor verify, and neither can it do anything, as to rule out miracles. The one that may deny or verify is the person.
You said "
You need faith to understand a miracle, not science." Can you explain what you mean by "
You need faith to understand a miracle"?
I guess you would say you have faith. So, do you understand a miracle, such as those which Christians refer to as miracles written in the Bible? And if you understand them, can you share to us this "understanding"?
: AVZ Wed Dec 20, 2017 - 21:10:44
It is you guys' claim that miracles violate natural law, but you are unable to tell which natural law is violated in the instance of the miracle of the healing of the blind man.
Since you admit that no natural law was violated, then the miracle was not supernatural.
If it is not supernatural, then it can be studied by science
But then again, if the healing was not supernatural..then technically spoken you cant classify it a miracle.
I am not confused what science does and cannot do, you are.
Because if the healing of the blind man did not violate any laws of nature, then it was a natural event, and natural events can be studied by science.
Yet you insist that science cannot...why?
So what are we dealing with here? Was the healing of the blind man a miracle?
If yes, and at the same time no natural laws were violated, then science can study it and come to the conclusion something beyond science was in play and declare the event a miracle. So science is very much able to say something about the supernatural, and determine if something is a miracle.
If no, then you have somewhat of a problem because there are many more instances of miracles in the Bible where no natural laws were violated.
Those will then have to be re-classified as not miracles as well.
Word play doesn't cut it, if you provide a "list" of natural laws perhaps we can decide which ones have been broken.
AVZ, this is typical of your charge against the beliefs of others, you build a straw man built on premises that have far too many variables to be considered conclusive. Stop attempting to complicate issues to reinforce your stance, the simple truth is that Jesus healed the blind man, whatever deficiency the man had with his vision was reversed in an instant, that alone defies the laws of nature and thus is considered a miracle.
: Alan Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 05:52:21
Word play doesn't cut it, if you provide a "list" of natural laws perhaps we can decide which ones have been broken.
AVZ, this is typical of your charge against the beliefs of others, you build a straw man built on premises that have far too many variables to be considered conclusive. Stop attempting to complicate issues to reinforce your stance, the simple truth is that Jesus healed the blind man, whatever deficiency the man had with his vision was reversed in an instant, that alone defies the laws of nature and thus is considered a miracle.
Alan, what AVZ is doing with all of his strawmen, even if he doesn't realize it, is showing his nearly complete ignorance of science at all levels. ---and really faulty logic in so much of his reasoning---
: 4WD Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 06:20:34
Alan, what AVZ is doing with all of his strawmen, even if he doesn't realize it, is showing his nearly complete ignorance of science at all levels. ---and really faulty logic in so much of his reasoning---
You guys are adamant that miracles violate natural laws, but when asked which natural laws are being violated you are unable to list any?
: AVZ Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 08:47:33
You guys are adamant that miracles violate natural laws, but when asked which natural laws are being violated you are unable to list any?
You're getting stuck on your own inability to reason, you know full well what is intended but you attempt to trap people in a play of words.
Nice try but NO.
You said "..science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles."
Right. It's limited to evidence from the natural world, so it can't analyze the supernatural.
On another post, you said about science, "It's just a method." ???
That's really confusing, isn't it?
If you don't understand science, it is.
But obviously not with regards science, since "It's just a method.". The scientist, like you, use science, as his method for knowing things, to be able to know the answer to his own questions or of others about certain things. And for scientist, I guess, those would be questions concerning the natural world. Now, science, being a method, is at the employ of any one.
Pretty much like plumbing is at the employ of anyone. You just have to know how it works.
I guess you would say that, employing science to get to answer questions pertaining to beyond what is natural, is misapplying the method or will fail, such as when one applies it on questions of the supernatural, the Divine.
Always has.
Now, you said "..science does not rule out miracles. It neither deny nor verify miracles." Of course, a method, like science, neither denies nor verify,
A flow test, for example, will verify or deny that pipes are open.
You said "You need faith to understand a miracle, not science." Can you explain what you mean by "You need faith to understand a miracle"?
You read a story in the Bible about Jesus raising Lazaus from the dead. We cannot verify it by evidence, but we can accept it on faith.
If we know some of the carbon dating dates dont work, how do we know ANY of them work? These are more SELECTED dates, not EXPECTED dates.
The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 years old, while it's skin and flesh were 21,300 years old. -Harold E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300.
Living mollusk shells were dated as being 2,300 years old. -Science. Vol 141. 1963 Pages 634-637
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. -Science Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. -Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971 p. 211
Mammoth bones from St. Paul Island, Alaska, were Carbon-14 "dated" as dying 3,688 BC! -Enk, J.M., Yesner, D.R., Crossen, K.J., Veltre, D.W., and O'Rourke, D.H., Phylogeographic analysis of the mid-Holocene mammoth from Qagnax Cave, St. Paul Island, Alaska, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 273:184-190, 2009
Mammoth bones on Wrangel Island off the NE Siberian coast were dated using Carbon-14. The remains were "dated" between 7,000 and 4,000 old. The dates were challenged by evolutionists, but then re-confirmed. -Vertanyan, A.V., Garutt, V.E. and Sher, S.L., Holocene dwarf mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic, Nature 362(6418):337-340, 1993. -Lister, A.M., Mammoths in miniature, Nature 362(6418):288-289, 1993.
"Ancient human skeletons, when dated by the new Accelerator Mass Spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less." -R.E. Taylor "Major Revisions In the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry", American Antiquity, Vo. 50 No. 1, 1985, pp 136-140
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000 years old." -Nikolai K. Vereshchagin and Alexei N. Tikhonov, The Exterior of Mammoths (Yakutsk, Siberia: Merelotovedenia Institute, 1990), p. 18.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was dated at 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9 to 10,000." -N. A. Dubrovo et al., "Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth," International Geology Review, Vol. 24, June 1982, p. 630. p. 633.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone, assigned a Middle Triassic evolutionary "age" of around 225-230 million years old, contains fossil wood Carbon-14 dated at 34,000 years old. This Carbon-14 should be non-existent if the wood were more than about 250,000 years old. -Snelling, A. A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone, Creation 21(3):39-41, 1999
Using Carbon-14, fossil wood from a quarry near Banbury, England, was dated from 20,700 to 28,800 years old. However, the limestone surrounding the wood was dated as Jurassic, supposedly 183 million years old. -Snelling, A. A., Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation 22(2):44-47, 2000
Carbon-14 has been found inside twelve diamonds. The diamonds were from mines in Botswana, South Africa and Guinea, West Africa. They have been found to contain very high amounts of Carbon-14. The average radiocarbon "age" was calculated to be 55,700 years old. According to evolutionary assumptions, the diamonds were supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old. -Baumgardner, J. R. 2005, Carbon 14 evidence for a recent global flood and a young Earth. In Vardiman, L, A.A Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, pp. 586-630. ICR and CRS Publishers, El Cajon, CA.
Carbon-14 has been found in a gold mine. Carbonized fossil wood was found in 1947 in volcanic "sand" at 1,700 feet underground within the Cripple Creek Breccia, Cresson Gold Mine, Cripple Creek, Colorado. The Ar-Ar [Argon-Argon] radiometric dating method yielded a date of 32 million years old. The Carbon-14 dating method yielded a date of 41,260 years old. -Kelly, K.D. 1996. Origin and Timing of Magnetism and Associated Gold-Telluride Mineralization of Cripple Creek, Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
Carbon-14 has been found in natural gas deposits. Carbon-14 has been found in natural gas supposedly 280 to 300 million years old. The carbon dioxide found in the Valverde Basin gas fields of southwest Texas has significant amounts of Carbon-14. The Carbon-14 dates supposedly range from 37,660 to 49,920 years old. -Doughty, John R., Deep Wells – Deep Time?, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 88-93, Fall 2007.
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! -The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801. -"Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 09:51:29
Right. It's limited to evidence from the natural world, so it can't analyze the supernatural.
You read a story in the Bible about Jesus raising Lazaus from the dead. We cannot verify it by evidence, but we can accept it on faith.
So you are saying that if today someone would raise from the death, science would not be able to verify he is alive, analyze the person from top to toe, and come to the conclusion a miracle occurred?
So you are saying that if today someone would raise from the death, science would not be able to verify he is alive
That would be possible.
analyze the person from top to toe
Depending on what you mean by "analyze."
and come to the conclusion a miracle occurred?
That wouldn't be possible for any sort of science we can do.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 19:26:57
That wouldn't be possible for any sort of science we can do.
And why not? The moment science concludes something supernatural must have been in play, would that not classify the event as a miracle?
Here is the thing. In order for you to classify something as a miracle, some analytics MUST take place.
So if you say that science cant help you with determining if something is a miracle, then why do you use it to determine if something is a miracle?
And why not?
Scfience has no way to evaluate the supernatural.
The moment science concludes something supernatural must have been in play
Which it can't do.
Here is the thing. In order for you to classify something as a miracle, some analytics MUST take place.
Sure. But science being inductive, can't do what you want it to. Science can only infer physical causes from physical evidence. Have a little faith in faith. If your faith can't do it, science can't do it for you.
So if you say that science cant help you with determining if something is a miracle, then why do you use it to determine if something is a miracle?
Scientific methodology could show something has a physical cause. But if it can't do that, then it won't work at all.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 21:39:46
Scfience has no way to evaluate the supernatural.
Which it can't do.
Sure. But science being inductive, can't do what you want it to. Science can only infer physical causes from physical evidence. Have a little faith in faith. If your faith can't do it, science can't do it for you.
Scientific methodology could show something has a physical cause. But if it can't do that, then it won't work at all.
That does not make sense at all.
Here is the process:
- You see something happening which you think may be a miracle
- You investigate the event by checking if there is any natural explanation for the occurrence (you use science)
- You come to the conclusion that there is no scientific explanation for the event
- You classify it a miracle
So whatever you say science can and cannot determine, the fact is that in order for you to determine an event is a miracle you MUST use science.
Similarly you MUST use science to determine an event is not a miracle.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 09:51:29
Michael:
You said "You need faith to understand a miracle, not science." Can you explain what you mean by "You need faith to understand a miracle"?
You read a story in the Bible about Jesus raising Lazaus from the dead. We cannot verify it by evidence, but we can accept it on faith.
You said "
You need faith to understand a miracle". Tell us how you get to understand Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead by faith.
Accepting, of faith, that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead is different from having an understanding of the said miracle.
That does not make sense at all.
It's just the way the method works. One then gathers evidence (which must be an observation of the physical world). If the hypothesis is supported by the evidence, one concludes
Here is the process:
- You see something happening which you do not understand.
- You start with a hypothesis, which must be testable.
- You collect evidence, which must be an observable phenomenon of nature.
- If the evidence supports the hypothesis, you conclude it is that natural process.
- If not, you back up, and try again, with a new hypothesis.
So whatever you say science can and cannot determine, the fact is that in order for you to determine an event is a miracle you cannot use science.
You said "You need faith to understand a miracle". Tell us how you get to understand Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead by faith.
You're missing the point. God doesn't use miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something. Hence, we understand the miracle as a lesson.
John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
[31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
Of course, the process by which God actually does miracles is completely out of reach of science or anything else we can do.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 23:00:41
It's just the way the method works. One then gathers evidence (which must be an observation of the physical world). If the hypothesis is supported by the evidence, one concludes
Here is the process:
- You see something happening which you do not understand.
- You start with a hypothesis, which must be testable.
- You collect evidence, which must be an observable phenomenon of nature.
- If the evidence supports the hypothesis, you conclude it is that natural process.
- If not, you back up, and try again, with a new hypothesis.
So whatever you say science can and cannot determine, the fact is that in order for you to determine an event is a miracle you cannot use science.
Well, by that reasoning you will have to conclude that the healing of the blind man was not a miracle.
A healing process is completely scientifically acceptable and explainable along a natural process.
Similarly the resurrection of Christ is not a miracle either.
For a body to go from death to life, no violation of the laws of nature is required.
That's why people gets themselves frozen with the expectation science will bring them to life again.
Technically and scientifically a body is nothing else but dead matter, and we see the process of accumulation of dead matter brought to life all the time in the process of conception.
Now the above events are most definitely unusual events, but uniqueness is not a reason to declare an event a miracle.
: AVZ Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 23:31:45Well, by that reasoning you will have to conclude that the healing of the blind man was not a miracle.
A healing process is completely scientifically acceptable and explainable along a natural process.
Similarly the resurrection of Christ is not a miracle either.
For a body to go from death to life, no violation of the laws of nature is required.
That's why people gets themselves frozen with the expectation science will bring them to life again.
Technically and scientifically a body is nothing else but dead matter, and we see the process of accumulation of dead matter brought to life all the time in the process of conception.
Now the above events are most definitely unusual events, but uniqueness is not a reason to declare an event a miracle.
AVZ, why do you insist on continuing to discuss science when you have no idea what you are talking about? Also conception is not dead matter brought to life. Neither the egg of the female nor the sperm of the male is dead matter. Both are very much alive; both constitute living matter.
: 4WD Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 05:04:04
AVZ, why do you insist on continuing to discuss science when you have no idea what you are talking about? Also conception is not dead matter brought to life. Neither the egg of the female nor the sperm of the male is dead matter. Both are very much alive; both constitute living matter.
The principal material the egg and sperm are made off is dead material.
: AVZ Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 06:34:29The principal material the egg and sperm are made off is dead material.
Seriously?? Are you really that biologically challenged? You just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. You really ought to quit.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 23:05:48You said "You need faith to understand a miracle". Tell us how you get to understand Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead by faith.
You're missing the point. God doesn't use miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something. Hence, we understand the miracle as a lesson.
John 20:29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. [30] Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
[31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
Of course, the process by which God actually does miracles is completely out of reach of science or anything else we can do.
No Sir. You have been missing my point. You are good at it by the way.
The matter you are saying here is a deviation from the matter of understanding a miracle by faith in contrast to understanding a natural phenomenon by science. You said "
You need faith to understand a miracle", and talk about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. As it is, your statement in bold is false. As you admit, "
the process by which God actually does miracles is completely out of reach of science or anything else we can do".
I remember you said that creation is a miracle. And yes it is. But then you claim that you know the creation process by which God created the world, all the living creatures and man, that is, by evolution. That says a lot about what you think you can do with science, does it not? The miracle of creation is seemingly supposed to be explained by the theory of evolution. If you really mean what you said that miracles are completely out of reach of science or anything else for that matter, then you ought to repent from thinking that the scientific theory of evolution explains how God created the earth, heavens, sun, moon, stars, all living things, and man.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 21, 2017 - 23:00:41
It's just the way the method works. One then gathers evidence (which must be an observation of the physical world). If the hypothesis is supported by the evidence, one concludes
Here is the process:
- You see something happening which you do not understand.
- You start with a hypothesis, which must be testable.
- You collect evidence, which must be an observable phenomenon of nature.
- If the evidence supports the hypothesis, you conclude it is that natural process.
- If not, you back up, and try again, with a new hypothesis.
So whatever you say science can and cannot determine, the fact is that in order for you to determine an event is a miracle you cannot use science.
A miracle happened, the dead Lazarus came back to life. God did the miracle, so the Christians believe, and that by faith. On the other hand, how do scientists deal with a miraculous event? Of course the scientist do not know whether it is a miracle or not. So, he may well start with the question "is it a miracle or not"? Being a scientist, he start with an hypothesis. He make scientific tests, collect evidences, and do all scientific routines and all, and repeat and try and try and try for as long as he fails. After perhaps failing a hundred or thousand times, will the good scientist give up? I guess not. For in so doing, it leaves him to conclude that it was a miracle, which I'm pretty sure he finds it very difficult to admit and accept.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
: Michael2012 Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 07:51:54
A miracle happened, the dead Lazarus came back to life. God did the miracle, so the Christians believe, and that by faith. On the other hand, how do scientists deal with a miraculous event? Of course the scientist do not know whether it is a miracle or not. So, he may well start with the question "is it a miracle or not"? Being a scientist, he start with an hypothesis. He make scientific tests, collect evidences, and do all scientific routines and all, and repeat and try and try and try for as long as he fails. After perhaps failing a hundred or thousand times, will the good scientist give up? I guess not. For in so doing, it leaves him to conclude that it was a miracle, which I'm pretty sure he finds it very difficult to admit and accept.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
Thanks for this. It made me realize that the core message of Barbarian is that non-believers can never use science, or logic or even a rational process to come to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
The only way to come to belief simply is to believe. But that belief itself is neither rational, logical nor sensible.
Belief is indefensible.
thank God for him then, lol. Faith in God is indefensible bc forgiving ppl who need "an eye for an eye" as a limiter makes no logical sense, see. Turning the other cheek is anathema to law. Giving your shirt to a guy who is stealing your coat would likely be termed "aiding and abetting" now, right
: AVZ Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 09:02:53The only way to come to belief simply is to believe. But that belief itself is neither rational, logical nor sensible.
Belief is indefensible.
That is simply not true. That is why God gave us His written word. It provides the evidence to convince anyone willing to read and to listen that it presents truth. It is why one believes. There is no real difference in why one believes anything. Belief comes from being convinced the evidence presented is true. That is what the Bible is for and that is what it does. The Bible is what makes a belief in God of the Bible rational, logical and sensible. Belief based upon nothing is just fantasy. If you think your belief is indefensible, then it is no better than the worst religions out there.
Thanks for this. It made me realize that the core message of Barbarian is that non-believers can never use science, or logic or even a rational process to come to the conclusion that Christianity is true.
Your error here, is to assume that if it's not scientific, it's not logical or rational. What a bizarre idea. There are many rational and logical arguments that are not at all scientific.
To wit:
"All ducks are birds.
Oscar is a duck.
Therefore, Oscar is a bird."
This is perfectly logical and rational, and is not in the least scientific, because it's deductive, rather than inductive. I'm thinking that you're in way over your head here, and a little reading of epistemology might clear some of this up for you.
Scientific reasoning would be:
The data show objects fall faster, the longer they fall.
The increase is measured to occur at a constant rate.
Therefore there is an acceleration, a such that the velocity of a falling object is aXt, where t is the time it has been falling.
This is not a proof; it's an inference from evidence, and therefore inductive. There is always the possibility that something else is responsible for the observed movement.
A miracle happened, the dead Lazarus came back to life. God did the miracle, so the Christians believe, and that by faith. On the other hand, how do scientists deal with a miraculous event?
If they are believers, they say, "oh, a miracle happened." Science can't consider miracles, but scientists can.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
Nope.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 09:57:04
Your error here, is to assume that if it's not scientific, it's not logical or rational. What a bizarre idea. There are many rational and logical arguments that are not at all scientific.
To wit:
"All ducks are birds.
Oscar is a duck.
Therefore, Oscar is a bird."
This is perfectly logical and rational, and is not in the least scientific, because it's deductive, rather than inductive. I'm thinking that you're in way over your head here, and a little reading of epistemology might clear some of this up for you.
Actually your premise "all ducks are birds" is a scientific premise.
If you have not scientifically established that indeed ducks are birds, your premise would be irrational.
For example
All cows are birds
Oscar is a cow
Therefore Oscar is a bird
...is irrational because cows are not birds.
Once upon a time the folowing is what we believed but time changes and the truth prevails
https://tinyurl.com/y9yug4gr
: 4WD Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 09:34:12
That is simply not true. That is why God gave us His written word. It provides the evidence to convince anyone willing to read and to listen that it presents truth. It is why one believes. There is no real difference in why one believes anything. Belief comes from being convinced the evidence presented is true. That is what the Bible is for and that is what it does. The Bible is what makes a belief in God of the Bible rational, logical and sensible. Belief based upon nothing is just fantasy. If you think your belief is indefensible, then it is no better than the worst religions out there.
Your response states "
That is why God gave us His written word"
But according to you guys, science cannot make any determination of the supernatural, so it is irrational to claim that indeed the written word came from God.
If you take Barbarians statement above, which I presume is scientific, it is always possible something (or somebody) else is responsible for the written word.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 10:07:03
Scientific reasoning would be:
The data show objects fall faster, the longer they fall.
The increase is measured to occur at a constant rate.
Therefore there is an acceleration, a such that the velocity of a falling object is aXt, where t is the time it has been falling.
This is not a proof; it's an inference from evidence, and therefore inductive. There is always the possibility that something else is responsible for the observed movement.
Objects do not fall faster the longer they fall.
There is one thing that is common in all living things from bugs, birds, fish to human's
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the blueprint for all inherited characteristics in living things. It is a very long sequence, written in code, that needs to be transcribed and translated before a cell can make the proteins that are essential for life. Any sort of changes in the DNA sequence can lead to changes in those proteins, and, in turn, they can translate into changes in the traits those proteins control.
Changes at a molecular level lead to microevolution of species.
THE UNIVERSAL GENETIC CODE
The DNA in living things is highly conserved. DNA has only four nitrogenous bases that code for all differences in living things on Earth. Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine line up in a specific order and a group of three, or a codon, code for one of 20 amino acids found on Earth. The order of those amino acids determines what protein is made.
Remarkably enough, only four nitrogenous bases that make only 20 amino acids account for all diversity of life on Earth. There has not been any other code or system found in any living, or once living, organism on Earth. Organisms from bacteria to humans to dinosaurs all have the same DNA system as a genetic code. This may point to evidence that all life evolved from a single common ancestor.
https://www.thoughtco.com/dna-and-evolution-1224567
In my view, DNA did not evolve into human form. We were always who we are today. And DNA did not originate from molten lava that covered this earth, it came from afar, a far off place brought here by others seeding the seed of life as we know it today. We are aliens of this planet.
At least in my view of things;
how about you, got a view?
: AVZ Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:09:17
Your response states "That is why God gave us His written word"
But according to you guys, science cannot make any determination of the supernatural, so it is irrational to claim that indeed the written word came from God.
The term "God" is just a name given to something we do not understand so we give this unknown thing a name. It could just as well be called a visitor from afar which in todays terms would be translated as "alien".
If I had to choose from one or the other I choose "God" rather than alien; how about you; got a view?
Objects do not fall faster the longer they fall.
They do. The acceleration due to gravity is about 9.8 meters per second
2. So every second an object falls, it gains 9.8 meters per second of velocity.
Air resistance will eventually slow the acceleration to a negligible factor. For a falling human, it's 100-200 mph, depending on posture.
Actually your premise "all ducks are birds" is a scientific premise.
No. It is a premise in a syllogism.
For example
All cows are birds
Oscar is a cow
Therefore Oscar is a bird
...is irrational because cows are not birds.
No, it's perfectly rational, since the conclusion is consistent with the premises. It happens to be wrong, but it's perfectly rational.
Once upon a time the folowing is what we believed
Maybe some people did, but not Darwinians. Darwin showed that sort of linear orthogenesis was not consistent with the evidence for evolution. It's not a ladder, it's a bush.
: tooldtocare Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:28:28
The term "God" is just a name given to something we do not understand so we give this unknown thing a name. It could just as well be called a visitor from afar which in todays terms would be translated as "alien".
If I had to choose from one or the other I choose "God" rather than alien; how about you; got a view?
So you're an agnostic then?
: AVZ Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:09:17Your response states "That is why God gave us His written word"
But according to you guys, science cannot make any determination of the supernatural, so it is irrational to claim that indeed the written word came from God.
If you take Barbarians statement above, which I presume is scientific, it is always possible something (or somebody) else is responsible for the written word.
Once again you show your unfamiliarity with all things rational or logical. God has given everything you need as evidence for the rational and logical acceptance of His word as truth.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:45:37
They do. The acceleration due to gravity is about 9.8 meters per second2. So every second an object falls, it gains 9.8 meters per second of velocity.
Air resistance will eventually slow the acceleration to a negligible factor. For a falling human, it's 100-200 mph, depending on posture.
So first you say they do, and immediately after that you give the reason why they don't.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 10:12:28
A miracle happened, the dead Lazarus came back to life. God did the miracle, so the Christians believe, and that by faith. On the other hand, how do scientists deal with a miraculous event?
If they are believers, they say, "oh, a miracle happened." Science can't consider miracles, but scientists can.
Of course science can't. It's just a method. And the scientists can consider miracles. Whether the scientist believer don't question it's being a miracle or not is his judgement. If he considers it, as without a doubt, that it is a miracle, then he believes it is.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 10:12:28
Of course the scientist do not know whether it is a miracle or not. So, he may well start with the question "is it a miracle or not"? Being a scientist, he start with an hypothesis. He make scientific tests, collect evidences, and do all scientific routines and all, and repeat and try and try and try for as long as he fails. After perhaps failing a hundred or thousand times, will the good scientist give up? I guess not. For in so doing, it leaves him to conclude that it was a miracle, which I'm pretty sure he finds it very difficult to admit and accept.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
Nope.
Why not Sir? Is not showing scientifically, that such is scientifically impossible to happen, not in a sense tell us that such is a miraculous event?
Scriptures speak of water turning into wine. Is this possible? Can not the scientist, by science, determine whether this is possible or that this is a miracle or not?
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:50:19
No. It is a premise in a syllogism.
No, it's perfectly rational, since the conclusion is consistent with the premises. It happens to be wrong, but it's perfectly rational.
of course it is not rational. Are you seriously proposing it is rational to say that cows are birds?
Given the premises, the conclusion is perfectly rational.
Your premises are wrong, and so the conclusion is wrong. Being wrong and being irrational are not the same things. If his puzzles you, do some reading on syllogisms.
Barbarian observes.
If they are believers, they say, "oh, a miracle happened." Science can't consider miracles, but scientists can.
Of course science can't.
Now you've got it.
It's just a method.
And it's a method limited to the physical universe, which is why it can't say anything about miracles.
And the scientists can consider miracles.
Of course. Because scientists aren't limited to science.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
Nope.
Why not Sir?
Science is limited to the physical universe.
Is not showing scientifically, that such is scientifically impossible to happen
How would science do that?
Scriptures speak of water turning into wine. Is this possible?
Technically, it's immensely unlikely.
Can not the scientist, by science, determine whether this is possible or that this is a miracle or not?
Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible. It can neither deny nor confirm miracles.
Barbarian observes:
They do. The acceleration due to gravity is about 9.8 meters per second2. So every second an object falls, it gains 9.8 meters per second of velocity.
Air resistance will eventually slow the acceleration to a negligible factor. For a falling human, it's 100-200 mph, depending on posture.
So first you say they do,
It's a fact that they do.
and immediately after that you give the reason why they don't.
If you add in another factor. If there's no additional force, it words precisely as Newton formulated it. That's how things work. If you experiment with a golf ball, you'll find it works precisely as Newton predicts.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:19:46
Given the premises, the conclusion is perfectly rational.
Your premises are wrong, and so the conclusion is wrong. Being wrong and being irrational are not the same things. If his puzzles you, do some reading on syllogisms.
Yes, irrational means not logical or reasonable.
It is neither logical nor reasonable to propose that cows are birds.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:31:55
If you add in another factor. If there's no additional force, it words precisely as Newton formulated it. That's how things work. If you experiment with a golf ball, you'll find it works precisely as Newton predicts.
I did not add in another factor.
As a scientist you should know that when you post a premise, you should also post the conditions of the premise.
.
: tooldtocare Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 11:07:52
Once upon a time the folowing is what we believed but time changes and the truth prevails
https://tinyurl.com/y9yug4gr
"The Power of Myth" comes to mind;
not that i agree with your premise necessarily
I did not add in another factor.
If you add an atomosphere, then that additional factor will affect the basic physics that says speed will be 0.5at
2.
As a scientist you should know that when you post a premise,
It's not a premise. It's an observation of the way things work. When I did this, I pointed out that there is an additional factor on Earth, that being air resistance. However, as you see, Newton's formula still works as predicted.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
Barbarian observes.
If they are believers, they say, "oh, a miracle happened." Science can't consider miracles, but scientists can.
Of course science can't.
Now you've got it.
Now, you've got it that I've got that.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
It's just a method.
And it's a method limited to the physical universe, which is why it can't say anything about miracles.
Now you don't get it that I've got that. Now, whether you deny it or not, that say, the miracle of water turning into wine involves the physical water and wine. The physical water instantly turns into physical wine. Now, can science not deal with water and wine? Would people not ask the question, how did the water turn into wine? The common man might say, "it's a miracle" simply because he has not heard of nor seen anything like that happening ever. The learned scientist believer might say "it's a miracle" because he does not know of any scientific study and knowledge that can explain how that was possible. The learned scientist unbeliever might say "That's not what it is, it's not what you think it is. There is a scientific explanation to that". And he goes out and puts on his scientific skills on the works. Even while he fails a thousand times, he just keeps on trying. Trying what? To come up with a scientific explanation of the matter. He never will determine, perhaps even if he lives to a thousand years, whether it was a miracle or not. But if only he would give up, when after much scientific study and tests, he would come to a conclusion that, there is no scientific explanation of the matter, and realize that it was a miracle.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
And the scientists can consider miracles.
Of course. Because scientists aren't limited to science.
The atheist scientists are, I think. Can they consider miracles?
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
Quote from: The Barbarian on Today at 10:12:28
Michael:
Of course the scientist do not know whether it is a miracle or not. So, he may well start with the question "is it a miracle or not"? Being a scientist, he start with an hypothesis. He make scientific tests, collect evidences, and do all scientific routines and all, and repeat and try and try and try for as long as he fails. After perhaps failing a hundred or thousand times, will the good scientist give up? I guess not. For in so doing, it leaves him to conclude that it was a miracle, which I'm pretty sure he finds it very difficult to admit and accept.
In this sense, can the scientist use science to find out whether an event is a miracle or not?
Barbarian:
Nope.
Michael:
Why not Sir?
Science is limited to the physical universe.
Please see my post above regarding the miracle of water turning into wine.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
Is not showing scientifically, that such is scientifically impossible to happen, not in a sense tell us that such is a miraculous event?
How would science do that?
Science is not the one that will do that, it's just a method that the scientist employ. But the scientist can, by science, show that, what has just occurred is impossible, scientifically. That is, that what took place is something supernatural.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 13:28:02
Scriptures speak of water turning into wine. Is this possible?
Scriptures speak of water turning into wine. Is this possible? Can not the scientist, by science, determine whether this is possible or that this is a miracle or not?
Technically, it's immensely unlikely.
Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible. It can neither deny nor confirm miracles.
The scientist, through science, have observed that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Does not the scientist say, on the negative, that it is impossible that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction for every action that occurs. Would you not say that Sir?
Yes, irrational means not logical or reasonable.
But "rational" or "irrational" don't have anything to do with being right or wrong. In a syllogism, all that matters is that the conclusion follow from the premises. The conclusion is rational because the conclusion follows from the premises. But it's wrong. Consider this:
The president of the United States is the candidate who got the most votes.
Donald Trump did not get the most votes.
Therefore, Donald Trump is not the president of the United States.
The conclusion is rational, because it follows from the premises. However, the first premise is incorrect; it is possible to win the presidency, even if someone else gets more vores. The conclusion is rational, but wrong.
Now consider:
The president of the United States is the candidate who got the most votes.
Donald Trump did not get the most votes.
Therefore Donald Trump is president of the United States.
In this case, the conclusion is irrational, since it does not follow from the premises, but it is correct.
One more:
The president of the United States is the candidate who gets the most electoral votes.
Donald Trump got the most electoral votes.
Therefore, Donald Trump is president of the United States.
This is rational, since the conclusion follows from the premise. And it's also correct.
Does that help?
The scientist, through science, have observed that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Third Law. Laws are what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. But all truth in science is provisional on new evidence. Laws and even theories (which are stronger than laws) are accepted provisionally; they are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science.
Does not the scientist say, on the negative, that it is impossible that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction for every action that occurs. Would you not say that Sir?
No. We would say that the evidence gives us sufficient confidence that it always works. Interestingly, there are exceptions such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node11.html
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png)
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 14:46:12
Newton's Third Law. Laws are what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. But all truth in science is provisional on new evidence. Laws and even theories (which are stronger than laws) are accepted provisionally; they are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science.
The point is, scientific knowledge today, provisional or not, is that it would be impossible that for every action there will not be an equal and opposite reaction, which refutes your statement that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible. "
Now, you say that scientific Laws and even theories are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science. That says a lot on what scientific knowledge is, that is, "unproven" and logically uncertain knowledge.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 14:46:12
Michael:
Does not the scientist say, on the negative, that it is impossible that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction for every action that occurs. Would you not say that Sir?
No. We would say that the evidence gives us sufficient confidence that it always works. Interestingly, there are exceptions such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
No Sir. It's what "unproven" theory scientist have come up with. With their limited time and capacity to observe all there is, they generalize matters, only to discover later that the theory is erroneous. And discovering one or two that goes against the theory, they call it exceptions. They live in their man-made scientific world governed by "unproven" and logically uncertain scientific knowledge, even deceived to the point of buying that something is impossible, or that, nothing may be said to be impossible, or that in science, there is but only possibilities. One thing I got in your post with regard the matter of impossibilities is that, the scientist does say that logical certainty
is impossible in science.
Theories stronger than a law?
rofl
: Texas Conservative Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 15:52:28
Theories stronger than a law?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=GyN2RhbhiEU
Barbarian observes:
Newton's Third Law. Laws are what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. But all truth in science is provisional on new evidence. Laws and even theories (which are stronger than laws) are accepted provisionally; they are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science.
The point is, scientific knowledge today, provisional or not, is that it would be impossible that for every action there will not be an equal and opposite reaction, which refutes your statement that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible. "
I just showed you that it's not true for centrifugal force or for the Coriolis force.
Now, you say that scientific Laws and even theories are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science. That says a lot on what scientific knowledge is, that is, "unproven" and logically uncertain knowledge.
It's like counting on the Sun coming up in the morning. You can't prove it will, but you have enough evidence to be sure that it will. Almost everything in the world is like that.
Does not the scientist say, on the negative, that it is impossible that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction for every action that occurs. Would you not say that Sir?
No. We would say that the evidence gives us sufficient confidence that it always works. Interestingly, there are exceptions such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
It's what "unproven" theory scientist have come up with. With their limited time and capacity to observe all there is, they generalize matters, only to discover later that the theory is erroneous. And discovering one or two that goes against the theory, they call it exceptions.
You're confusing laws and theories, now. Laws can have exceptions. Theories, however, have to be amended or discarded if there are exceptions found.
They live in their man-made scientific world governed by "unproven" and logically uncertain scientific knowledge, even deceived to the point of buying that something is impossible, or that, nothing may be said to be impossible, or that in science, there is but only possibilities. One thing I got in your post with regard the matter of impossibilities is that, the scientist does say that logical certainty is impossible in science.
At least for the present time. We don't know how to do that. However, in the future, some other way of handling information might make it so.
This might seem to be impossibly uncertain, but remember, this process is the way we learned to make computers out of dirt.
Wow. I normally take 2 days to teach this. I wish I knew about this before.
The key is, laws predict things. Kepler's laws predict how planets go around the sun. Newton's theory of gravitation explains why that happens, and thereby explains planet movements, the motions of moons, and why things fall to Earth.
A youtube link doesnt stop the comment i referenced from being retarded.
It's just the way they work. Theories, because they explain and predict things, are more powerful than laws, which merely predicts known things.
Besides, i never claimed theories were without any merit.
They are generally the way we learn to apply science in useful ways. Laws are essential, too, but weaker than theories.
: Alan Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 16:48:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=GyN2RhbhiEU
A youtube link doesnt stop the comment i referenced from being retarded.
Besides, i never claimed theories were without any merit.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 14:40:41
But "rational" or "irrational" don't have anything to do with being right or wrong. In a syllogism, all that matters is that the conclusion follow from the premises. The conclusion is rational because the conclusion follows from the premises. But it's wrong. Consider this:
The president of the United States is the candidate who got the most votes.
Donald Trump did not get the most votes.
Therefore, Donald Trump is not the president of the United States.
The conclusion is rational, because it follows from the premises. However, the first premise is incorrect; it is possible to win the presidency, even if someone else gets more vores. The conclusion is rational, but wrong.
Now consider:
The president of the United States is the candidate who got the most votes.
Donald Trump did not get the most votes.
Therefore Donald Trump is president of the United States.
In this case, the conclusion is irrational, since it does not follow from the premises, but it is correct.
One more:
The president of the United States is the candidate who gets the most electoral votes.
Donald Trump got the most electoral votes.
Therefore, Donald Trump is president of the United States.
This is rational, since the conclusion follows from the premise. And it's also correct.
Does that help?
I am asking you again: Is it rational to say that cows are birds?
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 14:46:12
since logical certainty is impossible in science.
This is a self refuting statement: How certain are you that logical certainty is impossible in science?
All ducks are birds?
LOL.
According to HUMAN classification, maybe.
: KiwiChristian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 21:08:43
All ducks are birds?
LOL.
According to HUMAN classification, maybe.
If you don't understand the intent of the post, perhaps you should refrain from commenting.
All cows are birds
Oscar is a cow
Therefore Oscar is a bird
I am asking you again: Is it rational to say that cows are birds?
It is incorrect to say that cows are birds. Your premises are wrong, and so the conclusion is wrong. But it's not irrational, given the premises. Being wrong and being irrational are not the same things. If his puzzles you, do some reading on syllogisms.
How certain are you that logical certainty is impossible in science?
Logical certainty is, by definition, only possible when you can prove your conclusion. Proof is when you know the rules and apply it to a particular situation. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules. Which is not logical certainty.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 21:45:31
It is incorrect to say that cows are birds. Your premises are wrong, and so the conclusion is wrong. But it's not irrational, given the premises. Being wrong and being irrational are not the same things. If his puzzles you, do some reading on syllogisms.
Here this is the meaning of irrational according to the dictionary.
irrational
ɪˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
not logical or reasonable."irrational feelings of hostility"
synonyms:
unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable, unsound; absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, silly, foolish, senseless, nonsensical, laughable, idiotic, stupid, wild; untenable, implausible, unscientific, arbitrary; informalcrazy, mad; informalbarmy, daft"she told herself that it was an irrational fear"
So your defense that it is rational to say that cows are birds, according to the dictionary is absurd.
Now I fully expect you to argue with the dictionary or make yet another irrational claim that "irrational means something different in science"
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 21:50:38
Logical certainty is, by definition, only possible when you can prove your conclusion. Proof is when you know the rules and apply it to a particular situation. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules. Which is not logical certainty.
So then, if logical certainty is only possible if you can prove your conclusion, and logical certainty does not exist in science...then science is not able to prove its conclusions.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 17:00:41
Barbarian observes:
Newton's Third Law. Laws are what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. But all truth in science is provisional on new evidence. Laws and even theories (which are stronger than laws) are accepted provisionally; they are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science.
Michael
The point is, scientific knowledge today, provisional or not, is that it would be impossible that for every action there will not be an equal and opposite reaction, which refutes your statement that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible. "
I just showed you that it's not true for centrifugal force or for the Coriolis force.
Yes, you just showed us that what scientist take as a natural law, in fact is not really the law as stated, but just a general statement of one's observation of the things he is capable of observing at the time, and does not make it the absolute governing universal natural law. In short it is false, though there may be some truth in it, and at best, seems evident to the scientists as true, until he discovers that it is false. And in time, what scientists believe to be true today, will be proven and shown to be false, by yet another that will likewise be proven false just the same, in time.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 17:00:41
Michael:
Now, you say that scientific Laws and even theories are never considered "proven", since logical certainty is impossible in science. That says a lot on what scientific knowledge is, that is, "unproven" and logically uncertain knowledge.
It's like counting on the Sun coming up in the morning. You can't prove it will, but you have enough evidence to be sure that it will. Almost everything in the world is like that.
Sorry, but I don't count on scientist with regards the sun as you do. I'm counting on the Creator, God. There will be morning and there will be evening, according to the will and power of the one who created all things, God. That the sun comes up in the morning tells me that God is gracious and powerful. But am I sure that it will come up tomorrow? You, the scientist that you are, will say that because you have enough evidence, you are sure that it will. As for me, I certainly do not. I will be sinning if I say I do.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 17:00:41
Michael:
Does not the scientist say, on the negative, that it is impossible that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction for every action that occurs. Would you not say that Sir?
No. We would say that the evidence gives us sufficient confidence that it always works. Interestingly, there are exceptions such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
So, you have enough confidence in scientists and in their words in scientific scriptures. I, on the other hand have full confidence in God and his words in scriptures.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 17:00:41
Michael:
It's what "unproven" theory scientist have come up with. With their limited time and capacity to observe all there is, they generalize matters, only to discover later that the theory is erroneous. And discovering one or two that goes against the theory, they call it exceptions.
You're confusing laws and theories, now. Laws can have exceptions. Theories, however, have to be amended or discarded if there are exceptions found.
I'm not confusing anything Sir. You just keep on giving the rules every time. Who says that laws have exceptions? Is it not the scientists? They put forth what the law is, based on their scientific study, and are also the one who put forth the exceptions. They, consciously or not, intentionally or not, speak of the result of their work, like it is how things work, being the governing law, and as the explanation as to why things are as they are. That when, some things happen that is contrary to what law they came up with says, all they have to do is say, that such is an exception. Easy and convenient.
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 22, 2017 - 17:00:41
Michael:
They live in their man-made scientific world governed by "unproven" and logically uncertain scientific knowledge, even deceived to the point of buying that something is impossible, or that, nothing may be said to be impossible, or that in science, there is but only possibilities. One thing I got in your post with regard the matter of impossibilities is that, the scientist does say that logical certainty is impossible in science.
At least for the present time. We don't know how to do that. However, in the future, some other way of handling information might make it so.
This might seem to be impossibly uncertain, but remember, this process is the way we learned to make computers out of dirt.
Do what?
We made computers out of dirt? Some glory the evolved ape have come to have in that. And for what? For a holy living and for the glory of God, or for survival of humankind and the desires of his flesh and for his own glory?
All cows are birds
Oscar is a cow
Therefore Oscar is a bird
I am asking you again: Is it rational to say that cows are birds?
It is incorrect to say that cows are birds. Your premises are wrong, and so the conclusion is wrong. But it's not irrational, given the premises. Being wrong and being irrational are not the same things. If his puzzles you, do some reading on syllogisms.
Do what?
We made computers out of dirt?
Yep. That's how semiconductors are made. Thought you knew.
Some glory the evolved ape have come to have in that. And for what? For a holy living and for the glory of God, or for survival of humankind and the desires of his flesh and for his own glory?
God gave us the world to use for our needs. So there you are.
So then, if logical certainty is only possible if you can prove your conclusion, and logical certainty does not exist in science...then science is not able to prove its conclusions.
Right. Like most things in this world, we can't prove them, but we can get enough evidence to accept them as true. All the technology, medicine, etc. that humans have developed are based on likelihoods, not proofs.
Barbarian observes:
You're confusing laws and theories, now. Laws can have exceptions. Theories, however, have to be amended or discarded if there are exceptions found.
I'm not confusing anything Sir.
You're confusing laws and theories.
You just keep on giving the rules every time.
I'm just telling you what the words mean in science.
Who says that laws have exceptions?
Scientists.
They put forth what the law is, based on their scientific study, and are also the one who put forth the exceptions.
Yep. For example, Newton's first law has exceptions in the case of rotational motion.
They, consciously or not, intentionally or not, speak of the result of their work, like it is how things work, being the governing law, and as the explanation as to why things are as they are.
No. You're confusing laws and theories, again. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things. Think of Kepler's laws of planetary motion. The law predicts how they will move. Newton's theory of gravitation predicts and explains their motion. And thereby his theory can be extended to all mass in the universe, unlike Kepler's laws.
That when, some things happen that is contrary to what law they came up with says, all they have to do is say, that such is an exception. Easy and convenient.
That's how it is with laws. That's why gravity is a theory and not a law. It is more certain than a law.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 09:49:59
Do what?
We made computers out of dirt?
Yep. That's how semiconductors are made. Thought you knew.
No I don't. You are the first I heard say that computers are made out of dirt.
On the first question "Do what?", is with regards what the scientist say, that logical certainty is impossible in science. You said concerning this "We don't know
how to do that." And so I asked, DO WHAT?
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 09:49:59
Some glory the evolved ape have come to have in that. And for what? For a holy living and for the glory of God, or for survival of humankind and the desires of his flesh and for his own glory?
God gave us the world to use for our needs. So there you are.
What needs?
Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.
: Texas Conservative Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 11:01:05
Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.
Only if you add water.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:12:59
Right. Like most things in this world, we can't prove them, but we can get enough evidence to accept them as true. All the technology, medicine, etc. that humans have developed are based on likelihoods, not proofs.
That is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.
This sounds no different to Christians, who see enough evidence in nature and in the Holy scriptures, that God exists and is the one who created all things including mankind, and is almighty and good, and accepts that as true.
But let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true. The difference is where faith is coming from. To the scientist, it comes from his scientific work and of other scientists. To the Christian, it comes from the work of God, both in nature and in His words in scriptures. Another point is that, there is this difference, the Christian have proof of what they accept as true, unlike the scientists who says that they can't prove what they accept as true. Concerning the truth that Christians accept, God have provided an absolute proof of His existence~ Jesus Christ. The Christians have Jesus Christ, the testimony that is absolutely true which not only is evidence that God exist, but is Himself the very proof of the existence of God, for He is God Himself, who appeared to the world, manifested in the flesh, seen by angels, which many have heard His words with their own ears, which many have seen His life and works their own eyes.
That is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.
They merely show enough evidence to make it foolish to deny. As you know, the evidence from genetics, fossil record, anatomical data, and so on is overwhelming. Even more compelling evolutionary theory predicted the transitional fossils long before anyone had found any of them. Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.
But let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true.
You've been misled about that. God requires faith. Science requires evidence.
Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.
Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course. But your computer is made from dirt.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40
I'm not confusing anything Sir.
You're confusing laws and theories.
I'm not. But of course you're a fellow of the scientists who made up what scientific laws and theories are. If you insist so.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40
Who says that laws have exceptions?
Scientists.
Exactly. And that's the point. And you are a scientist.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40
They put forth what the law is, based on their scientific study, and are also the one who put forth the exceptions.
Yep. For example, Newton's first law has exceptions in the case of rotational motion.
So, I'm clearly not confused. The scientists put forth the law and also are the ones who put forth any exceptions, whenever some thing goes against the law.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40
They, consciously or not, intentionally or not, speak of the result of their work, like it is how things work, being the governing law, and as the explanation as to why things are as they are.
No. You're confusing laws and theories, again. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain things. Think of Kepler's laws of planetary motion. The law predicts how they will move. Newton's theory of gravitation predicts and explains their motion. And thereby his theory can be extended to all mass in the universe, unlike Kepler's laws.
No Sir. I think you are the one confused here Sir. Laws does not predict things, the scientist does. Theories does not predict and explain things, the scientists does. Laws are statements that states what happens. Theories are explanations of how and why something happens. I have just pointed out to you above that it is the scientist that puts forth the law. And even with theories, it is the scientist who makes the theories.
My point in the quoted excerpt of my post is that, it is the scientist who defines these laws, and any exceptions to it, and so with the theories. And if it's coming from man, then it is man-made. And man. having a fallible and limited mind, so too is anything coming from such mind.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 10:19:40
That when, some things happen that is contrary to what law they came up with says, all they have to do is say, that such is an exception. Easy and convenient.
That's how it is with laws. That's why gravity is a theory and not a law. It is more certain than a law.
I know. They are only what the scientists have observed in his limited time. and reach of the created things around him.
So there is not a law of gravitation? What then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation which states:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
Is this a scientific law or a theory?
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:03:04
Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course. But your computer is made from dirt.
Not precise at all. Motherboards are typically a fiberglass type of material with copper for traces. Chips, cpu's etc are made of semiconductors which are typically silica. Silica is often a part of a dirt mixture, but dirt is not silica necessarily.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55
That is like saying that scientists like you see enough evidence that man evolved from apes millions of years ago, which evolved several hundred million years from another living creature, which evolved for still hundreds of millions years from yet another....., which evolved still for billion years even from a non-living matter, and accept them as true. And this is while the scientists can't prove this.
They merely show enough evidence to make it foolish to deny. As you know, the evidence from genetics, fossil record, anatomical data, and so on is overwhelming. Even more compelling evolutionary theory predicted the transitional fossils long before anyone had found any of them. Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.
I may be foolish then in the eyes of scientists in denying the evolution theory concerning man and life, but I will surely be more foolish if I deny God's words concerning the creation of man and the origin of life, or if I have a blind eye to what is manifested in nature concerning God.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55
But let me state a couple of points with regards this matter. One point is that we see "faith" is involved, both in the scientist and in the Christian, in what they accept as true.
You've been misled about that. God requires faith. Science requires evidence.
No Sir, I was not misled about that. The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.
Let me just state this for you to ponder about.
By faith the Christian understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. With science, that is not the case with the scientist. Their understanding of how the world was framed is by their faith in their scientific study and work.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:03:04
Saying computers are made of dirt is sloppy.
Takes different kinds of dirt, and we have to process it, of course. But your computer is made from dirt.
Perhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too, or even man. Both were processed by evolution of course. Would you say that?
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 14:06:13So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.
You are still confused about faith. We have faith in what we have come to accept as truth, not vice versa.
Perhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too
Actually, plants are mostly composed of water and elements from the atmosphere. Computers are, of course, made from minerals from the earth.
or even man.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
Both were processed by evolution of course.
Populations evolve. Individuals do not.
Barbarian explains:
You've been misled about that. God requires faith. Science requires evidence.
No Sir, I was not misled about that.
You have been misled. You're still having trouble getting the distinction between faith and evidence.
The Christian and the scientist both...
...the same person, in many cases.
are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things.
I am absolutely certain that Jesus is Lord, and died and was resurrected for my sins. I worry for those who aren't certain of this.
So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved.
You still don't get the difference. Here, Jesus explains to Thomas:
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. [27] Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. [28] Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. [29] Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
The other apostles had faith. Thomas wanted evidence. Jesus showed him the difference. Learn from this.
Let me just state this for you to ponder about.
By faith the Christian understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. With science, that is not the case with the scientist. Their understanding of how the world was framed is by their faith in their scientific study and work.
You're still confusing faith and evidence. Read from the Gospel of John, and learn.
So there is not a law of gravitation?
There's a theory of gravitation. Newton's laws are about motion, not gravity.
What then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation
Theory. Newton referred to it as "my theory." It's not a law, because it predicts
and explains gravity.
Newton's theory of gravity:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
Is this a scientific law or a theory?
A theory. It's not uncommon for people to call it a law, but as you learned earlier, it is a theory, because it both predicts and explains phenomena.
Not precise at all.
But very true.
On a weight basis, the abundance of silicon in the crust of Earth is exceeded only by oxygen...Pure silicon is too reactive to be found in nature, but it is found in practically all rocks as well as in sand, clays, and soils, combined either with oxygen as silica (SiO2, silicon dioxide) or with oxygen and other elements (e.g., aluminum, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, or iron) as silicates. The oxidized form, as silicon dioxide and particularly as silicates, is also common in Earth's crust and is an important component of Earth's mantle.
https://www.britannica.com/science/silicon
Motherboards are typically a fiberglass type of material with copper for traces.
Fiberglass is mostly silica.
Chips, cpu's etc are made of semiconductors which are typically silica. Silica is often a part of a dirt mixture, but dirt is not silica necessarily.
Its the second most common element in soil.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 17:15:46
But very true.
On a weight basis, the abundance of silicon in the crust of Earth is exceeded only by oxygen...Pure silicon is too reactive to be found in nature, but it is found in practically all rocks as well as in sand, clays, and soils, combined either with oxygen as silica (SiO2, silicon dioxide) or with oxygen and other elements (e.g., aluminum, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, or iron) as silicates. The oxidized form, as silicon dioxide and particularly as silicates, is also common in Earth's crust and is an important component of Earth's mantle.
https://www.britannica.com/science/silicon
Fiberglass is mostly silica.
Its the second most common element in soil.
You know you are not as correct as the man, the myth, the legend!
Scott Sterling?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0)
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 13:01:55
Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.
How could this be proof of anything? Let alone be "even more compelling"?
All it establishes is that you may not have found them yet, or you haven't looked in the right places.
: Jaime Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 20:18:50
Scott Sterling?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0)
Soccer is communist!
Not for Scott Sterling! The man, the myth and the legend.
: Jaime Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 20:41:34
Not for Scott Sterling! The man, the myth and the legend.
The man...the myth...the legend is Texas Conservative.
Barbarian observes:
That evolutionary theory predicted many transitional forms before they were found is compelling. Even more compelling than that is that there aren't any transitional forms where they shouldn't be.
How could this be proof of anything? Let alone be "even more compelling"?
Because we have numerous transitional forms later found as predicted by evolutionary theory, but never a transitional that was not predicted by evolutionary theory. Always where predicted, never where not predicted. Such evidence is compelling.
All it establishes is that you may not have found them yet, or you haven't looked in the right places.
As more an more fossils are found, and none that contradict the theory are found, it becomes more and more certain. When I was an undergraduate, there were no land mammal/whale transitionals, no wasp/ant transitionals, no transitional frogs, no transitional turtles, .... (long list). All of those are now in the record. What is not in the record, is any transitional that doesn't fit evolutionary theory.
Barbarian says:
gravity is a theory and not a law.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 17:07:13
What then is what is called Newton's law of gravitation
Theory. Newton referred to it as "my theory." It's not a law, because it predicts and explains gravity.
Newton's theory of gravity:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
Is this a scientific law or a theory?
A theory. It's not uncommon for people to call it a law, but as you learned earlier, it is a theory, because it both predicts and explains phenomena.
"
Newton's law of gravitation, statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them."
https://www.britannica.com/science/Newtons-law-of-gravitation
: 4WD Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 14:47:05
You are still confused about faith. We have faith in what we have come to accept as truth, not vice versa.
Likewise, I can say that you are still confused about faith.
I said:
"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything,
he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "
"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth. "Faith" is involved, even while they deny it, for even they admit that their scientific work, even while they say is based on a ton of evidence, and even while they accept it as truth, they are not absolutely certain about it. Accepting such to be true involves "faith".
With the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.
The difference on the matter:
Scientists' faith comes from themselves, in their work. They have their trust and confidence in themselves.
Christians' faith comes from God and His words and work. They have their trust and confidence in God.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 15:08:43
Perhaps you'll say that plants are made of dirt too.
Actually, plants are mostly composed of water and elements from the atmosphere. Computers are, of course, made from minerals from the earth.
I thought you believe that the earth brought forth the plants, and that which you call the process as "evolution", same as with all the living creatures and man.
By the way, so computers were made from dirt. Is that dirt evolving into a computer? Of course you will say no. Computer are man made, intelligently designed by man for a purpose, according to the form and design he so intend to make it. He use and dispose of it as he pleases.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 15:08:43
or even man.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
Populations evolve. Individuals do not.
So, you are saying that you don't evolve as an individual, but together with the entire population of man, you all evolve? Interesting and confusing.
Is not the theory of evolution (by natural selection), the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring?
And of course, since this process of evolution takes millions of years, and an individual ape for example only lives a relatively few years, no individual ape is said to have evolved into what we are today. So, when we say man evolved from apes, we say it in the context of the millions of years time frame. But then, it is in the individual that change actually occur, and so is said to be that which has evolved.
Now, the verse does not say anything about mankind as having been created by evolution, and more so not a as a population. What we have in Gen. 2:7 is "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Well, the Christian scientist will say that, the process by which God formed the man of the dust of the ground is what you call evolution. Interestingly, you cited Gen 3:19, which tells us, if we were to relate that to science's evolution theory, that from where man had evolved from, when he dies, he will come to be what he originally was, that is dust. But what we can really understand from Gen. 3:19 is that man, when he dies, his body will return to dust or turn back to dust. This is so because, it was of dust that God had formed man. And we come to understand that what was formed in Gen. 2:7, is the body. Not that, man was formed by having dust evolve over millions or perhaps billions of years to be flesh, but that, God used the dust of the ground as material in creating the flesh, the body of man. Supernaturally that is. I understand it as I understand Jesus making wine out of water.
Looking still into that, in both verses, nowhere is the idea of evolution. To be formed of the dust of the ground does not mean dust evolving into flesh, but that, God used dust as material to form the flesh body of man. It's like man using "dirt", as you put it, to form a computer. No evolution there. Now the flesh, as is made of dust, when it dies, disintegrates and decays into what it was made of, that is, according to scriptures, dust.
Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.
1. God said "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So GOD CREATED MAN in his own image..." Genesis 1:27.
2. JESUS said that God created man: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6.
"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mark 13:19.
3. SUDDEN APPEARANCE of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers.
4. MAN'S RECORDED HISTORY only goes back to about 3,000 BC, the first dynasty of Egypt and China, agreeing with the Bible's flood date of 2418 BC.
5. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says that systems go from order to disorder, yet evolution contradicts this by claiming systems go from "disorder to order".
6. DATING METHODS are greatly in error, giving an apparent age greater than the true age. This is due to unproven assumptions in the dating methods.
7. 220 EVIDENCES for a young earth of about 6,000 years old.
8. ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution.
9. Misplaced fossils. For example:
i) Human shoe print on trilobite fossil.
ii) Cave painting of brontosaurus in Zimbabwe.
iii) Polystrate tree trunks over many strata layers.
iv) Human and Dinosaur footprints in Turkmenia.
10. No beneficial mutations have given a new species.
There is no way to change the number of chromosomes in all the cells of an organism to change it to another species. For example, man has 46 chromosomes in every cell.
11. Complexity of sexual reproduction and eyes, can't be explained by evolution's random processes.
12. Bad social effects of evolution
a) "Survival of the fittest" of evolution justifies cunning, deceit, cruelty, animal behaviour and massacres, instead of God's law of love and service.
b) Militarism of Germany starting World War I and World War II came from them applying evolution to encourage survival of the "fittest" nation Germany. This allowed the massacre of 6 million Jews and the destruction of other countries. This was just an evolutionary conflict.
c) Spread of atheism.
d) Spread of Communism and the arms race.
e) Spread of immorality and divorce. People acting like animals is just evolutionary behaviour.
f) No idea of right or wrong because there is no authority of God to be accountable to.
g) Abortion. Evolutionists say, "Don't worry, the foetus is only in the fish stage."
: Michael2012 Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 23:20:13I said:
"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "
I know what you said. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth.
NO ! One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not. That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it. It does not work the other way. And by the way, that should be true for the Christian as well. He reads and studies the Scriptures. God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth. Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God.
With the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.
And again that is so completely wrong. The word of God is the evidence of its truth. That is in fact the main purpose for most, if not all, of the prophecies in the OT. Jesus, over and over, referred to the fulfilling of the Scriptures as the evidence of who He was. Faith, believing in God and Christ, comes from being convinced of the truth of God's word, not the other way around. Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes from hearing the word about Christ" (v.17). Hearing doesn't come from faith; faith comes from hearing. One believes what God says in the Scriptures, that is, one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God, i.e., for faith in God.
: 4WD Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 05:29:27
One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not. That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it.
First of all, you can't have a belief in evidence. Evolutionists as well as creationists all acknowledge the evidence, they just differ in the interpretation of it.
They differ in what they think the evidence is evidence for.
But you guys made a point that there is no such thing as logical certainty in science. That means that no explanation for evidence can ever be certain.
According to science there is always a possibility that the evidence (or better said: the conclusions drawn from it) is wrong, how big or small that percentage is cannot be known.
So the fact that you decide to believe the evidence, or rather the conclusions drawn from it, is indeed an act of faith.
: AVZ Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 06:04:11First of all, you can't have a belief in evidence.
One doesn't believe in evidence, one believes the evidence. Perhaps your problem here is the same as Michael's; you, and he, simply do not understand the difference between believing something or someone and believing IN something or someone. The basis for faith in God is being convinced the Bible presents the truth. Being convinced that the Bible presents the truth is the only reason that one would ever believe in God. Without that evidence, Judaism and/or Christianity would be just another religion out there with Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. It is not faith that makes the Bible true; rather its the truth of the Bible that is the basis for faith.
"What is an Oracle?"
: bbyrd009 Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 08:26:01
"What is an Oracle?"
Business software.
: Texas Conservative Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 09:05:53
Business software.
lol awesome, now what does 'evasion' mean lol
: 4WD Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 06:27:48
One doesn't believe in evidence, one believes the evidence.
That's not it at all.
Both sides believe the evidence, but both sides differ in the interpretation of it.
Example:
The fossil record is evidence that one time species existed that not longer exist.
Both sides accept the evidence.
For the evolutionist the fossil record is a record of related evolution.
For the creationist the fossil record is a record of unrelated diversification.
I find it peculiar, and very telling, that every time you seem to think it appropriate that Michael or I "don't understand" things.
It's the typical behavior of the evolutionist, the moment someone disagrees with the interpretation, he or she is labelled ignorant or lacking understanding.
Fact is however, as is admitted in this thread already, that the evolutionist has no basis to claim ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the opposition, as it has been made clear that evolution is not a logical certainty.
So if evolution would be proven incorrect, which according to the evolutionist is wholly possible, then the evolutionist in fact is the ignorant and lacking party.
Your problem is that you are convinced science provides you the truth, however that same science tells you it could also be wrong.
Then, if you believe in science, you must believe that it it could be both right or wrong.
Those who follow scripture don't have that problem. Since it is the Word of God, and God never can be wrong, it can only be right.
So those who believe scripture only have one option: it is right.
: bbyrd009 Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 09:27:44
lol awesome, now what does 'evasion' mean lol
Evasion is a video game company.
Now a question for you:
Please tell me the equation for radiometric dating. Can you do the math?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvf6W1HWpHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIOIlCQDNgg
I thought you believe that the earth brought forth the plants, and that which you call the process as "evolution"
You're confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began. Darwin, for example, in his book, just suggested that God created the first living things.
By the way, so computers were made from dirt.
Yep.
Is that dirt evolving into a computer?
Artifacts (things made by humans) aren't evolved. They are just designed. God created life to evolve. Humans merely design things. Design is the mark of an imperfect creature, not an omnipotent Creator.
(denies that man is made of dirt)
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
Barbarian observes:
Populations evolve. Individuals do not.
So, you are saying that you don't evolve as an individual
Right. Your alleles stay with you all your life, and don't change.
but together with the entire population of man, you all evolve?
Populations evolve. Over time, the allele frequencies in a population change. That's what evolution is. Individuals don't change; the population does.
Interesting and confusing.
Not if you're clear on the difference between individual and populations.
Is not the theory of evolution (by natural selection), the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.
Not organisms. As you now realize. An organism doesn't evolve. Populations of organisms evolve.
Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring?
That would be great, if it happened, but as you see, evolution tends to produce new organisms that are better fitted to their environments. An organism doesn't change alleles over time. Populations do.
And of course, since this process of evolution takes millions of years
It can happen in one generation. We observe it to do so.
and an individual ape for example only lives a relatively few years, no individual ape is said to have evolved into what we are today.
Remember, individuals don't evolve.
So, when we say man evolved from apes, we say it in the context of the millions of years time frame.
Yes. The evidence for that is compelling.
But then, it is in the individual that change actually occur
No. Whatever alleles an individual gets when gametes fuse to form an embyro, remain with it for life. Natural selection tends to let those organisms with traits that allow them to live long enough to reproduce, contribute alleleles to the next generation. That's how it works.
Now, the verse does not say anything about mankind as having been created by evolution
Doesn't say anything about genes or DNA, either. There's a lot of things that are true, that aren't found in scripture.
Well, the Christian scientist will say that, the process by which God formed the man of the dust of the ground is what you call evolution.
Some might, if they didn't understand evolution. Fortunately, you don't have to understand evolution in order to be saved.
Interestingly, you cited Gen 3:19, which tells us, if we were to relate that to science's evolution theory, that from where man had evolved from, when he dies, he will come to be what he originally was, that is dust.
You're confusing evolution and abiogenesis again. But living things were brought forth by the Earth. Your only difference with God's creation is that you don't approve of the way He did it.
Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no,
they were not apes or monkey like.
They looked just like we look today.
in my view (:-
"Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no, they were not apes or monkey like.[/quote]
Technically, we are apes. We and chimpanzees occupy a group within the larger ape clade.
They looked just like we look today.
Below the neck, the first humans looked pretty much like we today. Above the neck, there were considerable differences. Smaller crainia, bigger teeth, projecting faces, no chin.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 15:25:01
"Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no, they were not apes or monkey like.
Technically, we are apes. We and chimpanzees occupy a group within the larger ape clade.
Below the neck, the first humans looked pretty much like we today. Above the neck, there were considerable differences. Smaller crainia, bigger teeth, projecting faces, no chin.
He believes we are seeded by aliens.
: tooldtocare Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 13:01:57
Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no,
they were not apes or monkey like.
They looked just like we look today.
in my view (:-
prove the earth is at least 200,000 years old.
: Alan Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 15:42:15
He believes we are seeded by aliens.
No crazier than apes that evolved into humans over time.
No crazier than apes that evolved into humans over time.
It all comes down to evidence. The evidence, from genetics, anatomy, fossil transitionals, and so on, make it clear that humans evolved from other primates.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 19:34:19
It all comes down to evidence. The evidence, from genetics, anatomy, fossil transitionals, and so on, make it clear that humans evolved from other primates.
You mean the evidence from which never a logically certain conclusion can be drawn?
You mean the evidence from which never a logically certain conclusion can be drawn?
I mean the evidence that is compelling enough to make it perverse to deny what it says. In science, we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner and suffocate you. But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen, even if we can't do a formal proof.
Evolution is like that.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 21:15:58
I mean the evidence that is compelling enough to make it perverse to deny what it says. In science, we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner and suffocate you. But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen, even if we can't do a formal proof.
Evolution is like that.
What you just posted is a contradiction:
- we
can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to
be sure that it won't happen
So which one is it? Can you be sure, or can you not be sure?
What you just posted is a contradiction:
Nope. You're confusing logical certainty with overwhelming odds.
Barbarian demonstrates:
- we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen
So which one is it?
Both. "Truth is a stronger notion that provability." Douglas Hoffstader
Can you be sure, or can you not be sure?
You can be sure of things you can't prove. Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove.
If this continues to puzzle you, get a decent text on epistemology and learn.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 23:21:28
Nope. You're confusing logical certainty with overwhelming odds.
Barbarian demonstrates:
- we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen
Both. "Truth is a stronger notion that provability." Douglas Hoffstader
You can be sure of things you can't prove. Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove.
If this continues to puzzle you, get a decent text on epistemology and learn.
Now you just start posting whole lot of unrelated rubbish, in order to defend an undefendable position.
Epistemology find it roots in philosophy and psychology, you can literally be 100% sure that the earth is square, or you are Superman but that has nothing to do with scientific proof.
It is you who claimed that there is no logical certainty in science, and you either stand by your claim or abandon it.
Ripping out some totally unrelated statement by Douglas Hoffstader doesn't help either.
"Truth is a stronger notion that provability" is a universal philosophical truth.
After all Hoffstader is a cognitive scientist, an area that has nothing to do with the science we are discussing in this topic.
Your claim that "Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove." is utter rubbish.
I am sure my house is made of stone and concrete. I am also sure my wife is a female. I am also sure that my children are younger than I am. I am sure I am alive. And I can go on and on.
All these things I am sure off and I can prove as well.
But it is the standard tactics of an evolutionist. just because they think science provides the answer they tend to dump a whole lot of scientific information in the creationist, hoping the creationist will drown and has to admit science has merits beyond his understanding.
That's exactly what you are trying to do, but it is not going to work.
You have said a number of things that contradict your earlier claims. So are you going to back it up or are you going to try and wriggle yourself out of the situation your brought upon yourself?
: 4WD Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 05:29:27
Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 23:20:13
I said:
"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "
I know what you said. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I know that you take what I said as wrong, wrong, wrong. And we know that by saying that, it does not refute what I said.
: 4WD Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 05:29:27
"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth.
NO ! One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not. That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it. It does not work the other way. And by the way, that should be true for the Christian as well. He reads and studies the Scriptures. God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth. Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God.
Let's say you examined the evidence you say of evolution and are convinced that it is true. So you take it as true. Not that it is the truth, but that you are convinced that it is true based on your examination. How certain are you that evolution is true and that the theory of evolution is true, that it is the truth? Are you absolutely certain? If not, then there goes faith.
Now, you said "God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth. Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God."
Well, now I learned that your faith in God is based upon evidence, the evidence of which you say is God's words. By "God's words", are you referring to the Bible?
On the other hand, I came to have faith in God and Christ, not on the basis of evidence, material that is, but simply because I accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ. I can't explain why I did then. The only thing I know is that I have an inner conviction in my heart that I am a sinner and have offended God and because of that, have the wrath of God upon me and am going to hell, and have a desire to repent unto God and ask that He forgive my sins that I could be with Him and be saved. And I was convinced, after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is Him who can save me, and so I had faith. Reading scriptures thereafter strengthened my faith in God.
: 4WD Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 05:29:27
With the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.
And again that is so completely wrong. The word of God is the evidence of its truth. That is in fact the main purpose for most, if not all, of the prophecies in the OT. Jesus, over and over, referred to the fulfilling of the Scriptures as the evidence of who He was. Faith, believing in God and Christ, comes from being convinced of the truth of God's word, not the other way around. Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes from hearing the word about Christ" (v.17). Hearing doesn't come from faith; faith comes from hearing. One believes what God says in the Scriptures, that is, one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God, i.e., for faith in God.
Not so Sir.
The word of God is not the evidence of its truth, rather the word of God is the truth. Also, though it may well be that the fulfilling of the Scriptures concerning the Messiah gives evidence of who Jesus was, more to it than that, is that such is the unfolding and revelation of the truth ~ the word of God. Also, Faith does not come from being convinced of the truth of God's word, but that faith comes from hearing God's words. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts. And that happens in the heart of a person. Once convicted by the HS, of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement, only then can one have faith, which comes from hearing God's words ~ hearing God.
You said "one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God". I disagree, though that is how it is to many, mostly the ones considered wise in this world. As I have explained above, it is the HS who convicts and that happens in the heart. It is a spiritual matter. Besides, what we have in scriptures is the truth itself, more than are data and evidence as you and others take them.
Consider this. What does it take for one to be able to study correctly the data and evidence you say are presented in scriptures, that he is convinced that the word of God is true? Consider the poor and those who are illiterate or have only had little schooling, can they study correctly the data and evidence you are saying? If not, then it seems to be that the rich literate and adequately schooled are the better capable to study correctly the data and evidence you are saying and be convinced that the word of God is true. Since you say that one is convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures, if scriptures is true, and is the basis for having faith in God, it appears then that the rich literate and adequately schooled is likely to have faith in God than the poor illiterate and inadequately schooled person, isn't it? But then this is what we learn in scriptures:
James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren:
Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
: Michael2012 Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 05:44:09You said "one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God". I disagree.....,
I know you disagree. But that is why you don't really understand what faith is. And what is perhaps more important is you really have no understanding of why faith is important.
Consider the poor and those who are illiterate or have only had little schooling, can they study correctly the data and evidence you are saying? If not, then it seems to be that the rich literate and adequately schooled are the better capable to study correctly the data and evidence you are saying and be convinced that the word of God is true.
Here again, since you do not understand what faith is you make a silly comment like that.
http://rationalfaith.com/2016/01/games-evolutionists-play/
Games evolutionists play: The Name Game
Now you just start posting whole lot of unrelated rubbish, in order to defend an undefendable position.
You're just frustrated because you don't know what this is actually about.
Epistemology find it roots in philosophy and psychology, you can literally be 100% sure that the earth is square, or you are Superman but that has nothing to do with scientific proof.
That's not what epistemology says. And because science is inductive, not deductive, there can be no scientific proof in the sense logic defines "proof."
It is you who claimed that there is no logical certainty in science, and you either stand by your claim or abandon it.
You're missing the distinction between truth and proof. Many things are true that aren't provable.
Ripping out some totally unrelated statement by Douglas Hoffstader doesn't help either.
When Hoffstader shows that truth is a stronger notion than proof, he's making the very point that you can't get your head around.
Your claim that "Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove." is utter rubbish.
Are you sure of God? There are no logical proofs for God. You take Him on faith, and the evidence of His creation, or you don't get Him at all. This was His message to Thomas, and to you as well.
I am sure my house is made of stone and concrete. I am also sure my wife is a female. I am also sure that my children are younger than I am. I am sure I am alive. And I can go on and on.
All these things I am sure off and I can prove as well.
Are you sure that George Washington was our first president? Are you sure that the sun will rise tomorrow? There are countless things like this for which no logical proof is possible. Only evidence and inductive reasoning.
But it is the standard tactics of an evolutionist.
Remember, science is inductive, so we don't do scientific proofs. However, we can use proofs in mathematics, because we define the rules there. And we can use faith to find God. And scientists can do all of these things, even if science can't. I am often unscientific myself.
just because they think science provides the answer they tend to dump a whole lot of scientific information in the creationist, hoping the creationist will drown and has to admit science has merits beyond his understanding.
I truly wish you could understand. But the happy fact is, even if you never accept the way God created the diversity of life, it won't harm your salvation. Unless you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christian must believe it, God doesn't care. He will judge you, as Jesus says in Matthew, by other things.
You have said a number of things that contradict your earlier claims.
You are merely confused about the differences between knowing and proving.
We have always known much more than we can prove. And that's the way God made things. Let it be His way. And may you have a joyful and holy Christmas.
: Amo Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 07:38:40size=10pt]http://rationalfaith.com/2016/01/games-evolutionists-play/
Games evolutionists play: The Name Game[/size]
The author is guilty of the very thing he is charging the evolutionist with doing. He says, "The evolutionist has changed the type of evolution being discussed from molecules to man evolution to "changes in allele frequency" and thus has committed the fallacy of equivocation, '"the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.' "
But of course evolution is not and never was about molecules to man origin of humans. He will of course dig around in the literature until he perhaps finds an "evolutionist" somewhere who has made such a statement at sometime. But that of course is beside the point.
He says, "So while the evolutionist is technically correct about his definition of evolution, he is not speaking about the same thing that the creationist is." But that again is beside the point. Or perhaps that is in fact the point. The Young Earth Creationist is not talking about evolution at all; but instead blathers on and on about stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Games evolutionists play: The Name Game
Your blogger has been hornswoggled about that. Here's the scientific definition:
"Change in allele frequency in a population over time."
What does it mean?
First, it means that evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So, members of the population are born and die, the ratio of alleles (different versions of the same gene) changes as time goes on.
That's it. If the alleles tend to be useful or harmful (most of them are neutral) then we will see a directional change. Mostly, in a well-adapted population in an unchanging environment, we will see the ratios fluctuate within a mean that doesn't change much. If a useful new allele appears or if the environment changes, natural selection will then result in directional change, eventually arriving at a new mean.
Common descent is not evolution. It's a consequence of evolution, in the sense that your family is not reproduction, but rather a consequence of reproduction.
The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation. He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 08:28:00The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation. He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.
You are being very kind, and perhaps too generous. But God bless you for that.
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 08:28:00
The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation. He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.
Love the link, you should read it.
Its exactly how you and other defenders of evolution have been behaving during this discussion, with exactly the same arguments and tricks.
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 08:16:44
I truly wish you could understand. But the happy fact is, even if you never accept the way God created the diversity of life, it won't harm your salvation. Unless you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christian must believe it, God doesn't care. He will judge you, as Jesus says in Matthew, by other things.
Of course you believe it doesn't harm your salvation. It would be rather strange for you to say it would. I am however not convinced what you hope is true and I already expressed this earlier in this thread. Every person who is involved in something that goes against God's will has some kind of excuse that it doesn't harm his salvation.
You have been teaching evolution to students, and if any of these students abandoned his or her belief because of you, then you are responsible.
Secondly, evolution leads people away from God. Its the tool every atheist uses to draw others away from God, it is also the #1 reason people bring forward as proof that there is no God.
As far as I am concerned you have bought into a lie, and you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.
You can try to make the whole thing look not so bad, but I am not convinced at all. I think you are doing God a huge disfavor by pushing the evolutionist agenda.
What I am convinced about however is that those who believe scripture as it is given to us, will never be disappointed.
You keep on telling me that I "don't understand", and you have that completely wrong. I do understand.
Most of all I do understand that the message you are promoting is not the same message Genesis gives us. What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.
(Barbarian notes that even if you're a creationist, it won't harm your salvation.)
Of course you believe it doesn't harm your salvation. It would be rather strange for you to say it would.
The Bible makes it clear what you must do to be saved. Approving or disapproving of evolution is not one of those things.
I am however not convinced what you hope is true
Doesn't matter. What God says, matters.
and I already expressed this earlier in this thread. Every person who is involved in something that goes against God's will has some kind of excuse that it doesn't harm his salvation.
Denying what God did is not necessarily going against His will. Even if you never accept evolution, you can still be saved. It's not a salvation issue, unless you make an idol of your opinion, and insist that every Christian must accept what you think about it.
You have been teaching evolution to students, and if any of these students abandoned his or her belief because of you, then you are responsible.
The actual problem is the opposite. Many people lose their faith, because they were falsely told that creationism is an essential part of Christianity. YE creationism will have much to answer for at judgement. But not necessarily anyone who believes that new doctrine.
Secondly, evolution leads people away from God.
Christians say it has deepened and enriched their faith in God.
As far as I am concerned you have bought into a lie
As you have seen, the evidence for evolution is compelling. And the Bible doesn't deny anything in evolutionary theory. The Bible does deny the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, however, so you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.
You keep on telling me that I "don't understand", and you have that completely wrong. I do understand.
You want to understand, but you've been fed so many false doctrines that it's hard for you to see clearly.
What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.
: The Barbarian Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 10:38:19
(Barbarian notes that even if you're a creationist, it won't harm your salvation.)
The Bible makes it clear what you must do to be saved. Approving or disapproving of evolution is not one of those things.
Agreed
As you have seen, the evidence for evolution is compelling. And the Bible doesn't deny anything in evolutionary theory.
Possibly because the Bibe does not talk of anything evolutionery.
The Bible does deny the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, however, so you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.
The Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism?
When I read Genesis I read.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
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.
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.
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:
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.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Nowhere do I read that the Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism.
Not to mention that being able to create just by "saying" is pretty much out of nothing.....
What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.
And you also could be grouped here.
The Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism?
Yes. Genesis says that life was not created ex nihilo, but was brought forth by nature as God intended.
Barbarian to AVZ:
What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.
And you also could be grouped here.
I teach science, and yes, the Bible does not teach science. On the other hand, I have also been a CCD teacher, and there I teach Christian doctrine, not science. The important thing is that they are not contradictory.
Its exactly how you and other defenders of evolution have been behaving during this discussion, with exactly the same arguments and tricks.
As you have seen, evolution in biology is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." What your linked site does, is equivocate that with the consequences of evolution (such as common descent), and with the things that cause evolution, such as natural selection.
It's a dishonest argument, but I suspect that the person who put up that link had been deceived by others, and is not attempting to be deceive us.
One of the most common reasons that believers lose their faith is the line drawn in the sand between religious views and science, I know many people that are comforted to learn that science is simply the observation of God's handiwork. Science is not a lie, nor is there any practical reason for scientists to lie.
If science can't explain or even contemplate the supernatural, what's the point of what you said Alan? If someone is going to take issue with the supernatural virgin birth or Christ's resurrection, someone's loyalty to science is moot. If everything must be explained by nature, the supernatural has no chance. In my opinion Someone arguing a young earth does no more violence to science than someone holding to a virgin birth or resurrection from the dead.
Who is taking issue with the miracle birth of Christ? No one that I've seen, besides atheists, none of which are here or in my circle. ???
What situations were you referring to for people losing their faith when science was challenged. A faith walk is ALL ABOUT challenging science at every turn. If a person can't tolerate science being challenged will likely NOT begin a faith walk it seems.
Maybe you could further expand on what you meant, if my scenario is foreign to that.
For many people, myself included, the evidence is abundantly clear for things that science has revealed, such as the age of the universe, the historical records of life on earth, and yes, evolution too. If we're told to forget all of that and believe that it's all "fake", we must make a choice. I wouldn't want to be the one telling a new believer that they either accept the YE creationist narrative, (to which there exists no scientific evidence) or denounce your faith since evolution does not fit into God's word.
Ok, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell a new believer that an awful lot of the stuff in your faith walk is not necessarily a ratification of everything scientific.
If science can't explain or even contemplate the supernatural, what's the point of what you said Alan?
The point is, it's a big mistake to try to use science to understand the things of God. If one's faith isn't enough, science won't be able to pick up the slack.
If someone is going to take issue with the supernatural virgin birth or Christ's resurrection, someone's loyalty to science is moot.
Very true.
If everything must be explained by nature, the supernatural has no chance.
True again. This is why science can't explain the supernatural.
In my opinion Someone arguing a young earth does no more violence to science than someone holding to a virgin birth or resurrection from the dead.
There's no scientific data showing that there wasn't a miraculous virgin birth, or a resurrection. But there is abundant scientific evidence showing that the Earth is billions of years old, a conclusion that is consistent with scripture. Even creationists, prior to the 20th century, were good with an Earth many millions of years old.
Point is Barbarian, is that I contend Alan's statement is not necessarily true. If everything must line up with science for a new believer to stay on tract with his faith, there is no hope. I have a huge scientific and engineering background, but I have no problem taking Genesis as literal. I don't make it a test of faith, but neither should an old earth view be a test of scientific acumen IF things of faith and the supernatural are part of the equation, and they absolutely are. There is no scientific basis for an afterlife, but I am 100% sure of it.
I have no uncontrollable desire to come up with a scientific explanation for the waters of the Red Sea parting and standing in place while the Israelites crossed on dry land. If believing the text causes people to lose faith, because something outside of science happened, it doesn't have to be that way, and shouldn't. Things of faith require faith, not scientific ratification.
Just a few of MANY evidences for a young earth.
Coral Growth rates accurately measured under favourable growth conditions, show that no known coral formation is older than 3,500 years. (A A Roth, 'Coral Reef Growth', Origins, Vol 6, No.2, 1979, p 88).
Sea ooze. As fish and ocean plants die, they fall to the bottom and form an ooze, or very soft mud on the ocean floor at a rate of one inch every 1,000-5,000 years.
Measuring the depth of this ooze indicates a young earth.
Ocean Concentrations of elements from rivers and springs. If we assume, as evolutionists must, that the oceans were 100% freshwater (0% mineral content) at the beginning of earth's history, and knowing today's amount of each element in the oceans, we may calculate how long each element took to reach today's concentration level. Of the 51 main elements in sea water, 20 could have accumulated to today's level in 1,000 years; 9 other elements in 10,000 years, and 8 others in 100,000 years.
For example, Lead (2,000 years); Silicon (8,000 years); Vanadium (10,000 years); Cobalt and Nickel (18,000 years); Caesium (40,000 years); Bismuth (45,000 years); Mercury (42,000 years); Copper (50,000 years); Tin (100,000 years); Sodium (260 million years). Sodium gives the longest accumulation time, so by this method, earth could be no older than 260 million years.
: Texas Conservative Sun Dec 24, 2017 - 10:08:57
Evasion is a video game company.
Now a question for you:
Please tell me the equation for radiometric dating. Can you do the math?
Interestingly ( or not ), the dating methods involve a number of UNKNOWN ASSUMPTIONS.
ie: has the rate of decay been constant?
Dating methods produce selected dates rather than actual dates.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 years old, while it's skin and flesh were 21,300 years old. -Harold E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300.
Mammoth bones from St. Paul Island, Alaska, were Carbon-14 "dated" as dying 3,688 BC! -Enk, J.M., Yesner, D.R., Crossen, K.J., Veltre, D.W., and O'Rourke, D.H., Phylogeographic analysis of the mid-Holocene mammoth from Qagnax Cave, St. Paul Island, Alaska, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 273:184-190, 2009
Mammoth bones on Wrangel Island off the NE Siberian coast were dated using Carbon-14. The remains were "dated" between 7,000 and 4,000 old. The dates were challenged by evolutionists, but then re-confirmed. -Vertanyan, A.V., Garutt, V.E. and Sher, S.L., Holocene dwarf mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic, Nature 362(6418):337-340, 1993. -Lister, A.M., Mammoths in miniature, Nature 362(6418):288-289, 1993.
"Ancient human skeletons, when dated by the new Accelerator Mass Spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less." -R.E. Taylor "Major Revisions In the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry", American Antiquity, Vo. 50 No. 1, 1985, pp 136-140
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000 years old." -Nikolai K. Vereshchagin and Alexei N. Tikhonov, The Exterior of Mammoths (Yakutsk, Siberia: Merelotovedenia Institute, 1990), p. 18.
Now, if these scientists know why some dating methods didnt work, how do they know ANY of them do?!
The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 years old, while it's skin and flesh were 21,300 years old. -Harold E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300.
Living mollusk shells were dated as being 2,300 years old. -Science. Vol 141. 1963 Pages 634-637
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. -Science Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. -Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971 p. 211
Mammoth bones from St. Paul Island, Alaska, were Carbon-14 "dated" as dying 3,688 BC! -Enk, J.M., Yesner, D.R., Crossen, K.J., Veltre, D.W., and O'Rourke, D.H., Phylogeographic analysis of the mid-Holocene mammoth from Qagnax Cave, St. Paul Island, Alaska, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 273:184-190, 2009
Mammoth bones on Wrangel Island off the NE Siberian coast were dated using Carbon-14. The remains were "dated" between 7,000 and 4,000 old. The dates were challenged by evolutionists, but then re-confirmed. -Vertanyan, A.V., Garutt, V.E. and Sher, S.L., Holocene dwarf mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic, Nature 362(6418):337-340, 1993. -Lister, A.M., Mammoths in miniature, Nature 362(6418):288-289, 1993.
"Ancient human skeletons, when dated by the new Accelerator Mass Spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less." -R.E. Taylor "Major Revisions In the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry", American Antiquity, Vo. 50 No. 1, 1985, pp 136-140
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth was carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000 years old." -Nikolai K. Vereshchagin and Alexei N. Tikhonov, The Exterior of Mammoths (Yakutsk, Siberia: Merelotovedenia Institute, 1990), p. 18.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was dated at 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9 to 10,000." -N. A. Dubrovo et al., "Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth," International Geology Review, Vol. 24, June 1982, p. 630. p. 633.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone, assigned a Middle Triassic evolutionary "age" of around 225-230 million years old, contains fossil wood Carbon-14 dated at 34,000 years old. This Carbon-14 should be non-existent if the wood were more than about 250,000 years old. -Snelling, A. A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone, Creation 21(3):39-41, 1999
Using Carbon-14, fossil wood from a quarry near Banbury, England, was dated from 20,700 to 28,800 years old. However, the limestone surrounding the wood was dated as Jurassic, supposedly 183 million years old. -Snelling, A. A., Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation 22(2):44-47, 2000
Carbon-14 has been found inside twelve diamonds. The diamonds were from mines in Botswana, South Africa and Guinea, West Africa. They have been found to contain very high amounts of Carbon-14. The average radiocarbon "age" was calculated to be 55,700 years old. According to evolutionary assumptions, the diamonds were supposedly 1 to 3 billion years old. -Baumgardner, J. R. 2005, Carbon 14 evidence for a recent global flood and a young Earth. In Vardiman, L, A.A Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (editors), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, pp. 586-630. ICR and CRS Publishers, El Cajon, CA.
Carbon-14 has been found in a gold mine. Carbonized fossil wood was found in 1947 in volcanic "sand" at 1,700 feet underground within the Cripple Creek Breccia, Cresson Gold Mine, Cripple Creek, Colorado. The Ar-Ar [Argon-Argon] radiometric dating method yielded a date of 32 million years old. The Carbon-14 dating method yielded a date of 41,260 years old. -Kelly, K.D. 1996. Origin and Timing of Magnetism and Associated Gold-Telluride Mineralization of Cripple Creek, Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
Carbon-14 has been found in natural gas deposits. Carbon-14 has been found in natural gas supposedly 280 to 300 million years old. The carbon dioxide found in the Valverde Basin gas fields of southwest Texas has significant amounts of Carbon-14. The Carbon-14 dates supposedly range from 37,660 to 49,920 years old. -Doughty, John R., Deep Wells – Deep Time?, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 88-93, Fall 2007.
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! -The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801. -"Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker
"He [Dr. Libby] found a considerable discrepancy in his measurements indicating that, apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25 percent faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this result was inexplicable by any conventional scientific means, Libby put the discrepancy down to experimental error." -Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 32. (Referring to Dr. Willard Libby - The Founder of the Carbon-14 Radiocarbon Dating Technique, Radiocarbon dating, 2d ed., University of Chicago Press 1955)
"During the 1960s, Libby's experiments were repeated by chemists. ... The new experiments, though, revealed that the discrepancy was not merely an experimental error – it did exist." [Emphasis added] -Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 32. (Referring to Dr. Willard Libby - Founder of the Carbon 14 - Radiocarbon Dating, 1955)
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." [Emphasis added] -Dr. Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19(3), 1981, pp. 9,29 (Assistant Editor).
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnotes. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." -Proceedings of the twelth Nobel Symposium. New York. 1970 Page 35.
"We now know that the assumption that the biospheric inventory of Carbon-14 has remained constant over the past 50,000 years or so is not true.". -Elizabeth K. Ralph and Henry M. Michael, "Twenty-five Years of Radiocarbon Dating," American Scientist 62 (September/October 1974)
"Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying.". -R.E. Taylor et al., "Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140
"It now appears that the C-14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere." -William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83.
: Alan Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 14:12:22
One of the most common reasons that believers lose their faith is the line drawn in the sand between religious views and science, I know many people that are comforted to learn that science is simply the observation of God's handiwork. Science is not a lie, nor is there any practical reason for scientists to lie.
Science is observation and explanation of the natural world, but some of it is conjecture and current understanding given the evidence on hand.
As far as no practical reason for scientists to lie? You are wrong, there are practical reasons. Money. Politics. Grants.
Climate change "science" is full of this.
: Alan Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 14:12:22
One of the most common reasons that believers lose their faith is the line drawn in the sand between religious views and science, I know many people that are comforted to learn that science is simply the observation of God's handiwork. Science is not a lie, nor is there any practical reason for scientists to lie.
I don't think the line in the sand is any reason whatsoever for believers to lose faith. A line drawn makes it very clear where boundaries are.
The acceptance of the evolution lie, and the message that it doesn't matter troubles the water, and people transition into a scientific scene where much of what scripture teaches is being disputed or denied.
The real reason for believers to abandon their faith is not because someone draws a line, the real reason is they are being deceived by the party at the other side of the line.
Secondly, I dont believe at all people leave their faith because lines are drawn. I think it is a weak excuse.
What would religion be if no lines are drawn? Any religion draws lines. People simply accept those lines or they don't...but I have never heard people say "oh you draw a line somewhere I disagree with...so now I am abandoning my faith".
I can imagine people joining another church, or another group...but if people abandon their faith it is because they have lost faith altogether.
Thirdly, there are many practical reasons for scientists to lie about science. These reasons are the same as for anyone lying about anything.
You can find liars within religion as well as without. All of these liars lie because it benefits them. In case of the scientist it may be the difference between recognition and rejection, popularity and impopularity, funding and non-funding, employment and jobless.
To illustrate this with an example.
Christianity draws a clear line on the issue of LGBT. Homosexuality is clearly rejected in scripture.
Now a whole bunch of homosexuals will tell you that it is not an issue of salvation. They will go the full length of telling you the Bible means something else when it talks about God rejecting homosexuality. And there will be a whole bunch of Christians that agree.
Science also has a word in the debate. It is claimed that homosexuality is a biological issue, like having a male body and a female brain.
And since it is something biological, well then it can't be helped.
Fortunately my church draws a line and does not give in to the scientific consensus. Whatever proof is being submitted by the scientific community, my church says "no".
The Bible says it is not how it is supposed to be, and we follow what the Bible says.
Well, if that means that people will leave the church, or abandon faith...would you really suggest that the church should not have drawn the line?
Would you blame the line for people leaving?
People abandon faith because they want to. Evolution give them an excuse.
As I said I have never ever heard of or met someone who is convinced about evolution and acknowledges that evolution brought him to God. It simply does not happen.
Evolution draws people away from God.
Moreover, why is it that if an evolutionist comes to belief...he ALWAYS changes his mind about the interpretation of the scientific evidence?
Why is it that once they accept Christianity they immediately turn around and declare science to be wrong about the whole or part of evolution?
When they were not believers they argues that the evidence is indisputable...but once they are believers suddenly they have a whole lot to dispute.
Drawing lines in the sand is what religion does. What would a religion be if it does not draw lines?
The argument that people abandon faith because of those lines is weak and in no way reflects reality.
: Texas Conservative Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 21:29:33
As far as no practical reason for scientists to lie? You are wrong, there are practical reasons. Money. Politics. Grants.
Climate change "science" is full of this.
That would result in a much, much, bigger conspiracy theory than the fake lunar landing, the science supporting evolution is global, and not every scientist is making an exorbitant living from his/her research. OTOH, there still exists no credible research to support a 6000 year old earth, maybe crazy Ken Ham could donate some of his millions to a genuine research study.
: Alan Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 23:16:19
That would result in a much, much, bigger conspiracy theory than the fake lunar landing, the science supporting evolution is global, and not every scientist is making an exorbitant living from his/her research. OTOH, there still exists no credible research to support a 6000 year old earth, maybe crazy Ken Ham could donate some of his millions to a genuine research study.
You call it a conspiracy theory, but that's not at all what it is.
Most evolutionists will not give creation the light of day because it is dismissed by definition. The argument for this has been brought up many times in this post: Science cannot say anything about the supernatural...creation is supernatural...hence creationism is dismissed without further ado.
And with that said, creationists are dismissed without further ado.
It is fact that creationists are not the most popular kids on the block. We can even see that in this thread. How many times have you told the creationists here that they don't understand science or they are lacking common sense? If you were a creationist scientist...can you imagine the flak you will be getting?
You can even see it in your response. You call Ken Ham's research "not genuine".
It is the standard response from the scientific community to those who differ of opinion: If you are a YE creationist; your research is not genuine and you are an idiot.
And it really does not matter what kind of alternative approach to the data you offer, you have been declared an outcast and that's what you are.
Funding of research is a big issue. But it is science itself which has excluded creationism from the funding list.
If science claims that it cannot say anything about the supernatural...then why would anyone put money in research of creationism?
If science can't say anything about creationism...then any funds pumped into that research will be thrown away money.
As far as no practical reason for scientists to lie? You are wrong, there are practical reasons. Money. Politics. Grants.
Climate change "science" is full of this.
Regrettably, that has been the case where denial can pay big dollars...
Exxon Mobil Corp. promised nine years ago to stop donating to groups that spread misinformation about climate change. Yet between 2008 and 2015, the oil giant's charitable arm gave over $6.5 million to groups that deny that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, a new analysis shows.
The analysis, which the advocacy nonprofit NextGen Climate put together and The Huffington Post independently verified, includes donations to industry associations, which tend toward skepticism on environmental concerns, and research organizations that openly oppose the scientific consensus on climate change.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tillerson-exxon-climate-donations_us_5873a3f4e4b043ad97e48f52
A prominent academic and climate change denier's work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.
Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.
According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country's biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.
The documents draw new attention to the industry's efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama's power-plant rules.
Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules
Read more
Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun...The Center for Astrophysics does not require scientists to disclose their funding sources. But Pulliam acknowleged that Soon had failed to meet disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research. "Soon should have followed those policies," she said.The Center for Astrophysics does not require scientists to disclose their funding sources. But Pulliam acknowleged that Soon had failed to meet disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research. "Soon should have followed those policies," she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
$10,000 Awards Offered for Scientists to Undermine Climate-Change Report
The American Enterprise Institute has offered scientists and economists $10,000 each to write critical reviews of a report issued today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to an article in The Guardian, a British newspaper. The institute, a right-leaning think tank that has received more than $1.6-million from Exxon Mobil, wrote letters to scientists asking for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs,"
https://www.chronicle.com/article/10000-Awards-Offered-for/38165
"Follow the money", you betcha.
Point is Barbarian, is that I contend Alan's statement is not necessarily true. If everything must line up with science for a new believer to stay on tract with his faith, there is no hope.
A very wise man of God once observed that truth cannot contradict truth. But the good news is that you don't have to accept every scientific fact to be saved. You can, for example, be a YE creationist without putting your salvation at risk. It doesn't matter if you accept the way He did it or not.
I have a huge scientific and engineering background, but I have no problem taking Genesis as literal.
And as far as salvation is concerned, it doesn't matter.
I don't make it a test of faith, but neither should an old earth view be a test of scientific acumen IF things of faith and the supernatural are part of the equation, and they absolutely are.
In science, it comes down to evidence. And it's unequivocal. Even if you reject the fact of heat from radioactive breakdown, the fact is, the heat flux from the Earth would indicate a world tens of millions of years old.
There is no scientific basis for an afterlife, but I am 100% sure of it.
As the man said, truth is a stronger thing than provability.
I have no uncontrollable desire to come up with a scientific explanation for the waters of the Red Sea parting and standing in place while the Israelites crossed on dry land. If believing the text causes people to lose faith, because something outside of science happened, it doesn't have to be that way, and shouldn't. Things of faith require faith, not scientific ratification.
Which is fine. Again, you won't lose your salvation for saying so. Whether there was a miracle or if God used natural means for that, or even if it was an allegory and not literal history, it won't matter.
: AVZ Mon Dec 25, 2017 - 22:33:14The acceptance of the evolution lie, and the message that it doesn't matter troubles the water, and people transition into a scientific scene where much of what scripture teaches is being disputed or denied.
There may be some scientists that deny what the Bible teaches. But then I'll bet there are people in your chosen field who do that as well. And that generally has nothing whatsoever to do with the chosen field, scientific or otherwise. And it is not science that disputes or denies what the Bible teaches.
The real reason for believers to abandon their faith is not because someone draws a line, the real reason is they are being deceived by the party at the other side of the line.
The Young Earth Creationism is a religion all of its own and it is that religion which may well drive some away, since it goes against so much of what is known about the world today. It is right up there with the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th centuries in misinterpreting the Scriptures concerning an Earth-centric solar system. And that is quite in addition to biological evolution.
Secondly, I dont believe at all people leave their faith because lines are drawn. I think it is a weak excuse.
What would religion be if no lines are drawn? Any religion draws lines. People simply accept those lines or they don't...but I have never heard people say "oh you draw a line somewhere I disagree with...so now I am abandoning my faith".
I can imagine people joining another church, or another group...but if people abandon their faith it is because they have lost faith altogether.
You need to read and study very carefully what Paul had to say about disputable matters in the fourteenth chapter of Romans.
Thirdly, there are many practical reasons for scientists to lie about science. These reasons are the same as for anyone lying about anything.
You can find liars within religion as well as without. All of these liars lie because it benefits them.
Sometimes that is definitely true. We see far too many TV evangelists for whom fame and fortune is the driving source. But I think moreoften it is because, like you, they erroneously think they are right.
To illustrate this with an example.
Christianity draws a clear line on the issue of LGBT. Homosexuality is clearly rejected in scripture.
Now a whole bunch of homosexuals will tell you that it is not an issue of salvation. They will go the full length of telling you the Bible means something else when it talks about God rejecting homosexuality. And there will be a whole bunch of Christians that agree.
Science also has a word in the debate. It is claimed that homosexuality is a biological issue, like having a male body and a female brain.
And since it is something biological, well then it can't be helped.
What you have just described is the basic reason for nearly all sin. Nearly all sin involves the taking of basic biological needs and desire to the extreme in violation of God's law. What, for example was Eve's sin?
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. John describe all sin as
For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world (1 John 2:16).That is not about science, that is about the basic urges and desires of the human being. And it is not those basic urges and desires that constitute sin, it is giving in to those basic urges and desires in a way that is in conflict with God's Law. And it generally is not the scientists who rationalizes and condones such behavior as you are describing concerning the LGBT; rather it is the philosopher/psycologist that does that.
Fortunately my church draws a line and does not give in to the scientific consensus. Whatever proof is being submitted by the scientific community, my church says "no".
The Bible says it is not how it is supposed to be, and we follow what the Bible says.
Well, if that means that people will leave the church, or abandon faith...would you really suggest that the church should not have drawn the line?
Would you blame the line for people leaving?
No you follow what you THINK the Bible says. Again, you need to read Romans 14. The greatest sin in all of this may be your and your church's failure to understand Paul's message there.
And I will say again, there are quite likely many scientists who reject God's word. But science does no such thing. I would be willing to bet that there are many in your own field of endeavor who reject God's word. Does that make what you do for a living wrong? My guess is that you don't think so.
I would imagine the "line" for those that aupposedly lose their faith has way more than evolution vs creation involved. To believe at all requires a scientifically illogical belief in the first place. Christian faith requires so much more than logic. However I contend that a lot of scientific "logic" requires pretty much as much faith as Christianity does.
Most evolutionists will not give creation the light of day because it is dismissed by definition.
The professor who taught my first course in evolution was on the board of his church. So far as I know, there's only one biologist on this board, and he's absolutely certain that God created all things.
The argument for this has been brought up many times in this post: Science cannot say anything about the supernatural...creation is supernatural
Which is why science can't discuss the supernatural, even if scientists can.
...hence creationism is dismissed without further ado.
It's a matter of evidence. Creation is not consistent with most forms of creationism.
It is fact that creationists are not the most popular kids on the block. We can even see that in this thread. How many times have you told the creationists here that they don't understand science or they are lacking common sense?
Don't know about common sense, but most creationists don't understand science very well. There are some exceptions.
If you were a creationist scientist...can you imagine the flak you will be getting?
I took immunology from a kind old professor who was a creationist. He had tenure, so I don't see much of a problem.
You can even see it in your response. You call Ken Ham's research "not genuine".
Can you cite a paper written by Ham, in which he did research? Let's take a look.
It is the standard response from the scientific community to those who differ of opinion: If you are a YE creationist; your research is not genuine and you are an idiot.
That's not how it works. Kurt Wise, for example, was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould. As he one wrote, all that really matters is ability.
And it really does not matter what kind of alternative approach to the data you offer, you have been declared an outcast and that's what you are.
"Alternate facts" is a euphemism for something less attractive.
Funding of research is a big issue. But it is science itself which has excluded creationism from the funding list.
There is no "decider" in science. Most of the funding is that given by private industry or business groups. And each professor is expected to attract his own funding for such research. So it's a marketplace of ideas kind of situation. There are certainly creationist scientists, particularly in disciplines outside of biology, and most of them do all right.
If science claims that it cannot say anything about the supernatural...then why would anyone put money in research of creationism?
Private industry funds research, because they expect to get something out of it. Creationism does nothing useful, nor does it provide new knowledge. So not many businesses would fund it.
If science can't say anything about creationism...then any funds pumped into that research will be thrown away money.
That's what most businessmen think. There is government funding, but the big money is from business groups. And they fund things because they hope to be able to use the new knowledge gained thereby.
I would imagine the "line" for those that aupposedly lose their faith has way more than evolution vs creation involved. To believe at all requires a scientifically illogical belief in the first place.
After the dark ages ended, Christian Europe took the lead in science from the Muslim and pagan scientists who came before them. It would be odd if their findings were at odds with faith in God.
Christian faith requires so much more than logic.
Of course. But as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in
Summa Theologiae reason is the key to theology.
However I contend that a lot of scientific "logic" requires pretty much as much faith as Christianity does.
There is one assumption in science. It is that the rules by which the universe works have been the same from the beginning. Other than that, everything rests on evidence.
This assumption, called "uniformitarianism" is at the heart of all we do as scientists. We use it for a very simple reason.
It works. Works better than anything else humans can do to understand the world He has given us. If it didn't work, scientists wouldn't use it. Since it does work, they will use it, no matter who disapproves.
Uniformitarianism is called into question for me since people don't live 900 years anymore as well as other things.
Not to mention things like incongruities in dating methods brought up by KIWI. Like I said science is NOT without a certain amount of faith.
[quoteUniformitarianism is called into question for me since people don't live 900 years anymore as well as other things.[/quote]
The fact is, everything comes out as it would if the rules of the universe have been constant since the beginning. That being so, it's not likely that scientists would change their minds. They are pragmatists, and if it works at helping us learn more about the universe, that's what they will use.
Not to mention things like incongruities in dating methods brought up by KIWI.
The fact that whenever we check known date with these methods, they come up with accurate results, gives scientists a lot of confidence in those results. Most notably, argon/argon testing accurately called the eruption that buried Pompeii. It's remarkable that the method can accurately call an eruption only 2000 years old.
Like I said science is NOT without a certain amount of faith.
Evidence is what matters. Faith doesn't work for science.
Faith in uniformitarianism undeniably fits my statement. Kiwi's examples were exactly illiustrating that point.
Is the substantial reduction in the age that people lived according to the Bible an argument for or against uniformitarianism, or an argument that the Bible is wrong? Something substantial changed after the real or "allegorical" flood in a relatively short order. That much change makes uniformitarianism.....................un-uniform.
Faith in uniformitarianism undeniably fits my statement.
Uniformitarianism would be dropped immediately, if it didn't work. If uniformitarianism didn't let us learn more useful things about our world, scientists wouldn't use it. So, it's a matter of evidence, not faith.
Kiwi's examples were exactly illiustrating that point.
Yours was at least accurate. Kiwi seems to have a lot of misconceptions about it.
Is the substantial reduction in the age that people lived according to the Bible an argument for or against uniformitarianism[/quote]
The Bible says man's age is three score and ten. Seventy years.
Psalm 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
Most of us live longer than that, now. It does say that some people's lives were prolonged much longer than that, but that's not the same thing. It doesn't say that all humans had extended lifetimes.
or an argument that the Bible is wrong?
No, our longer lifespans are mostly due to better nutrition and good medical care.
Something substantial changed after the real or "allegorical" flood in a relatively short order.
The Bible doesn't say so.
Don't think so. I have read about the examples Kiwi has given. There are some glaring examples of discrepancies in datings methods.
Yes the BIble says so. People were living 900 years pre flood and then post flood God gave the decree you quoted. Was it environmental change such as hyperbaric armosphere prior to the flood or something else? Change denotes non-uniformitarianism. Of course a non-global flood would pretty much mullify all that.
Of course all of that water draining somewhere in one year according to the Bible, would also negate uniformitarianism.
Yes the BIble says so. People were living 900 years pre flood and then post flood God gave the decree you quoted.
Where does it say that humans (as apart from specific people God gave long lifespans) lived 900 years before the flood?
Was it environmental change such as hyperbaric armosphere prior to the flood or something else? Change denotes non-uniformitarianism.
No. It's never been that way. "Uniformitarianism"means the rules stay the same, not that there's no change.
Of course a non-global flood would pretty much mullify all that.
And the best evidence for an actual flood would be the great regional flood that created the Black Sea.
(Barbarian notes that radioisotope dating precisely called the eruption that buried Pompeii)
Don't think so.
It's very well-documented.
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.
With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.
http://www.pompeiana.org/News/1997/08_28_97%20-%20Precise%20dating%20of%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pompeii%20proves%20argon-argon%20method%20can%20reliably%20date%20rocks%20as%20young%20as%202,000%20years.htm
I have read about the examples Kiwi has given. There are some glaring examples of discrepancies in datings methods.
Give us an example,and we'll look it over. You do know that paleontologists don't use carbon 14 to date rock? The half-life is too short to be useful for fossils in almost all cases.
Kiwi gave plenty of examples.
Noah and others lived over 900 years. Several hundred years was not uncommon in the Biblical account.
God changed the rules. Therefore uniformitarianism fails.
A local flood would not have altered the hyperbaric atmosphere that caused longer life spans. A global flood would have. And that naturally by the uniform rules WOULD NOT have drained off or evaporated in one year. It had to be a supernatural "changing the rules". God never has exempted himself from changing the rules and going against uniformitarianism.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 13:15:22
(Barbarian notes that radioisotope dating precisely called the eruption that buried Pompeii)
It's very well-documented.
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.
With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.
http://www.pompeiana.org/News/1997/08_28_97%20-%20Precise%20dating%20of%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pompeii%20proves%20argon-argon%20method%20can%20reliably%20date%20rocks%20as%20young%20as%202,000%20years.htm
Give us an example,and we'll look it over. You do know that paleontologists don't use carbon 14 to date rock? The half-life is too short to be useful for fossils in almost all cases.
Your example was not completely accurate. It was off by some years. There is an error percentage.
Also, one data point on the mathematical model that is close does not mean all will be.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 13:12:00
No. It's never been that way. "Uniformitarianism"means the rules stay the same, not that there's no change.
It really doesn't matter. Even if the rules stay the same, as long as the variables change the outcome will be different.
However, we know that the rules and the variables did not stay the same.
At the moment of the Big Bang the rules and variables were different from what they are now. In order for this universe to have come into being, rules and variables must have changed.
So even in evolutionary science there is proof that rules and variables did change.
Science however is not willing to extend the time in which these variables were different.
I agree AVZ, if God intervenes for a Big Bang, global flood, parting the Red Sea, or a virgin birth, uniformitarianism fails. Things cannot remain the same if an all powerful God changes reality. And we know he does and did.
: AVZ Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 13:30:21[At the moment of the Big Bang the rules and variables were different from what they are now.
And you know that how?
In order for this universe to have come into being, rules and variables must have changed.
Were there rules and variables before? What were they? How do you know? In point of fact, you don't know. You haven't the foggiest notion about that at all. Don't feel bad, no one else does either. There really is no way to know about anything before the big bang. So far as anyone knows, there was no "before the big bang". Before is a measure in time; time being a physical entity created at the big bang.
Barbarian observes:
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.
With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.
http://www.pompeiana.org/News/1997/08_28_97%20-%20Precise%20dating%20of%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pompeii%20proves%20argon-argon%20method%20can%20reliably%20date%20rocks%20as%20young%20as%202,000%20years.htm
Your example was not completely accurate. It was off by some years. There is an error percentage.
Less than one percent, in fact seven years off for an event that took place 1918 years before. Actually, it's
0.36 percent off. Remarkably good, considering that it was thought that argon-argon testing could not accurately call such a recent date.
I agree AVZ, if God intervenes for a Big Bang, global flood, parting the Red Sea, or a virgin birth, uniformitarianism fails.
Nope. Uniformitarianism only works from the big bang on, so that's not a problem. Nor does the occasional miracle mean that God is always tinkering with creation to get it to work. He doesn't do miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something.
NOPE If God banged, uniformitarianism was intervened.
If man's ages were truncated by God, he intervened with uniformitarianism. Many more examples. Not the least of which is a global flood that drained somewhere miraculously within one year.
Uniformitarianism is great until it isn't
: Texas Conservative Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 13:24:59
Your example was not completely accurate. It was off by some years. There is an error percentage.
Also, one data point on the mathematical model that is close does not mean all will be.
Today, the argon-argon method is accurate to withing a few decades. The testing to accurately determine a date is quite extensive and measures are instilled to eliminate human error prior to publishing any findings. Inconsistencies in prior testing methods have been well documented and great measures to circumvent those issues have been taken.
"Fallible dating methods" is just another religious misinterpretation turned hyperbole.
: Alan Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:11:52
Today, the argon-argon method is accurate to withing a few decades. The testing to accurately determine a date is quite extensive and measures are instilled to eliminate human error prior to publishing any findings. Inconsistencies in prior testing methods have been well documented and great measures to circumvent those issues have been taken.
"Fallible dating methods" is just another religious misinterpretation turned hyperbole.
Don't use that BS on me.
I am looking at this as an engineer. It is a mathematical model. Verifying a few data points does not mean it is valid across the entire curve.
: Texas Conservative Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:28:10
Don't use that BS on me.
I am looking at this as an engineer. It is a mathematical model. Verifying a few data points does not mean it is valid across the entire curve.
I'm not minimizing your credentials by any means, I was pointing out that testing is performed in multiple instances and multiple environments prior to verification. The effort to remove "error" is very high.
NOPE If God banged, uniformitarianism was intervened.
Since our universe and laws didn't exist until after the Big Bang, it would be absurd to suppose it happened to something that didn't exist at the time.
If man's ages were truncated by God, he intervened with uniformitarianism.
But aside from a few patriarchs, the Bible doesn't say that humans lived longer than the three score and seven the Bible says.
Many more examples. Not the least of which is a global flood that drained somewhere miraculously within one year.
If there was a flood (and that's not clear; some Christian think there was, and others don't) it remained in the Black Sea basin, where it flooded.
I am looking at this as an engineer.
If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable? If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that. For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric tests.
Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods. As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Today, the argon-argon method is accurate to withing a few decades.
For relatively short periods of time, it is. If you're talking about ages of several hundred million years, a 2 million year variation wouldn't be surprising. It's a percentage of the total.
The use of isochrons can greatly reduce uncertainty, but there's still a number of factors.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:55:34
For relatively short periods of time, it is. If you're talking about ages of several hundred million years, a 2 million year variation wouldn't be surprising. It's a percentage of the total.
The use of isochrons can greatly reduce uncertainty, but there's still a number of factors.
Assuming for long periods of time the Ar/Ar method is compounded with K/Ar to determine an age, still very accurate with a correction pf 0.65%.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
Here's the article. Basalt commonly has a large number of xenocrysts (unmelted mineral crystals that remaind solid during the flow, an therefore are very ancient) and unless carefully screened for these crystals, the sample will give weirdly old ages. Gentry (another creationist) used this trick in dating the rock from the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens.
It's a very useful trick for people who are not familiar with the method.
Assuming for long periods of time the Ar/Ar method is compounded with K/Ar to determine an age, still very accurate with a correction pf 0.65%.
Yep. It's not much comfort for creationists, if a date turns out to be 578 million years, compared to 588 million years.
: 4WD Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 15:15:18
And you know that how? Were there rules and variables before? What were they? How do you know? In point of fact, you don't know. You haven't the foggiest notion about that at all. Don't feel bad, no one else does either. There really is no way to know about anything before the big bang. So far as anyone knows, there was no "before the big bang". Before is a measure in time; time being a physical entity created at the big bang.
You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory. It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best. What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.
The existence of a singularity in a space that does not exist violates any principle of the laws of nature we know of.
We don't know if time itself did not exist within that singularity, but something must have existed within the event itself to make the event happen.
The assumption is that the gravitational forces within the singularity must have been tremendously huge, but that would mean gravity existed before it could exist.
These are the dilemma's science is trying to deal with, but no satisfactory answer is found and neither can any of this be proven.
If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
In fact the earth could have popped into existence, and the stars, and planets, and animals, and trees.
They could have popped into existence one shortly after the other, or maybe with millions of years between them.
The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.
What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.
We do know that right at the start of this universe they were not like what they are today.
Now you argue that there is no such thing as time before the big bang, but really who is to tell?
If a singularity can pop into existence, then anything could have popped into existence before the singularity.
And who is to tell that during the big bang things only started to exist? It would be wholly possible that in the big bang things that were ceased to exist.
If it is reasonable to believe a big bang, then it is equally reasonable to believe the opposite.
The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.
They could be constant for now, but that's no guarantee they will always be or were before.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:52:40
If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable? If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that. For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric tests.
Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods. As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
I would consider the instrument reliable only for the time it actually measures.
How did you arrive at the error margin?
You took an event that you factually know happened 2000 years ago, took present day measurements, and concluded the error margin of 0.35%
However if I were to ask you to do the same on an event that happened 10,000 years ago, you would impossibly know the error margin.
So what you do is extrapolate the error margin into history past as a constant value.
Fact is however, you do not know if the variables you work with are indeed constants.
You also don't know if your error margin is a constant. The error margin could be the product of assumed constants which in fact are not constant at all.
The simple fact is that if indeed this universe is 14 billion years old, and all the factual data you have is 2000 years old, you are missing a baffling 99.9999999% of testable data.
The real question is that since you have an error margin of 0.35% and an allowed error margin of 2% over a period of 2000 years, what caused the error margin?
And if you allow for the error percentage to multiply by 6 within a 2000 year time frame, how much allowance would you give it for a time frame of 2 million years, or 2 billion years?
And why would you not allow for more error margin, or why would you?
You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory.
Yep. If it was just a law, it wouldn't explain how it happened.
It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best.
You've been misled about that. The hallmark of a theory is that it is supported by a body of observed evidence. Even better, the Big Bang theory has made predictions that later were confirmed by observation. Two Bell Lab employees happened to discover the microwave background predicted by the Big Bang. Such confirmed predictions are what make theories compelling.
What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.
You were misled about that, too. We are getting a better and better understanding of the mechanisms involved and the length of time it took. Different ideas about that involve testable predictions and our subsequent observations make clear which, if any of them are correct.
If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
They are called "virtual particles", and yes, we do observe them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.
The farther we look back in time, we see the laws of nature working as they do today. There are other ways we know this to be true. For example, the speed of light is a constant in the formula for radioactive breakdown. So if the speed of light was significantly faster in the past than it is today, the radiation would have cooked all living things on Earth.
The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.
Observations show that the evidence is consistent with uniformitarianism. And that's all that matters.
I would consider the instrument reliable only for the time it actually measures.
How did you arrive at the error margin?
We know the actual date of the eruption that buried Pompeii.
You took an event that you factually know happened 2000 years ago, took present day measurements, and concluded the error margin of 0.35%
However if I were to ask you to do the same on an event that happened 10,000 years ago, you would impossibly know the error margin.
No, that's wrong too. For example, we've been able to calibrate the C-14 system using lake varves, which always form seasonally, two per year.
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/
So what you do is extrapolate the error margin into history past as a constant value.
Nope.
The real question is that since you have an error margin of 0.35% and an allowed error margin of 2% over a period of 2000 years
No. It's not unusual for argon-argon testing for rocks hundreds of millions of years old to show about 2% variation.
what caused the error margin?
It's impossible to completely remove xenocrysts and xenoliths, both of which can affect the reading. Extremely tiny inclusions can matter. If you really want to know, I could ask a geochronologist I know, for more detail.
And if you allow for the error percentage to multiply by 6 within a 2000 year time frame
That's not how it works. Learn more about it here:
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game
The Bible is real. And it is God who is THE author of it all. No matter what kind of versions there are, God is the same like that of the Bible. Never changes. Nor never will.
From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?
Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?
Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.
And so, the Christian scientist who has strong confidence in science, believe the creation of man by the million and perhaps billion years long evolution by natural selection, until perhaps to the point with which God intended of man to be, if this evolution still is continuing. And he finds himself confronted with the matter of having to interpret the creation as written in scriptures, in such a way as to fit this scientific knowledge into the texts. But then, he seems to forget that scriptures has been there for the longest time and the creation of man by God was understood, not in any way close to what scientists call evolution by natural selection. Was such an understanding wrong?
On the physical side of the matter, the Christian scientist might say that there really is not a problem because of the overwhelming evidence he points to that compels him to believe in the theory. And on the spiritual and supernatural side of it, as that in relation to God, he says that the theory does not have any effect about it. Obviously this is the way to go for the Christian scientist. But the reality is, the theory affects scriptures, that he himself cannot deny. For he himself finds it necessary to re-interpret Genesis. And with a different interpretation of Genesis, based on the scientific theory, the message in scriptures may well be affected, in some way.
If I'm not mistaken, scientists says that evolution is a continuing process, and goes on even now. And that man evidently evolves to betterment of its kind, the better survival of its kind. Perhaps the scientists predicts that someday man will have knowledge of how to live a longer life than a 100 years, maybe a 1000 years, or maybe even for as long as he so have knowledge to maintain life.
And so I asked:
Is salvation the end result of evolution? Is not science then leading man to believing that he can by science, someday attain, if not eternal life, a very very long life?
: Michael2012 Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 04:39:32
From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?
Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?
Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.
And so, the Christian scientist who has strong confidence in science, believe the creation of man by the million and perhaps billion years long evolution by natural selection, until perhaps to the point with which God intended of man to be, if this evolution still is continuing. And he finds himself confronted with the matter of having to interpret the creation as written in scriptures, in such a way as to fit this scientific knowledge into the texts. But then, he seems to forget that scriptures has been there for the longest time and the creation of man by God was understood, not in any way close to what scientists call evolution by natural selection. Was such an understanding wrong?
On the physical side of the matter, the Christian scientist might say that there really is not a problem because of the overwhelming evidence he points to that compels him to believe in the theory. And on the spiritual and supernatural side of it, as that in relation to God, he says that the theory does not have any effect about it. Obviously this is the way to go for the Christian scientist. But the reality is, the theory affects scriptures, that he himself cannot deny. For he himself finds it necessary to re-interpret Genesis. And with a different interpretation of Genesis, based on the scientific theory, the message in scriptures may well be affected, in some way.
If I'm not mistaken, scientists says that evolution is a continuing process, and goes on even now. And that man evidently evolves to betterment of its kind, the better survival of its kind. Perhaps the scientists predicts that someday man will have knowledge of how to live a longer life than a 100 years, maybe a 1000 years, or maybe even for as long as he so have knowledge to maintain life.
And so I asked:
Is salvation the end result of evolution? Is not science then leading man to believing that he can by science, someday attain, if not eternal life, a very very long life?
Why do you not mention all of the (supposedly) scientific claims that support YE creation? If science should be separated from scripture, then to a faithful man such as yourself, the YE creationist scientific claims should hold no more weight than any other research and study, be it 6000 years or billions of years.
: Michael2012 Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 04:39:32From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?
Yes, most definitely; at several levels in fact. When God speaks about the sun and the moon, it is about physical reality. So then when we read in Ecclesiastes that
"the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Eccl 1:5). , we know that the writer is not speaking about the real motion of the sun, but rather about the rotation of the earth whether or not the author knew anything about it. It also lets us know that heaven is not a physical place somewhere above the earth, no matter how any scriptures might seem to present it as that. Then there is the authenticity of the Scriptures that are borne out from a knowledge of archaeology or history. One should never forget that the bulk of what is given us in the Scriptures is about physical reality. It is, after all, the truth, properly rendered and evaluated, of what we can see, feel, and measure that gives us the trust in the truth of all that we cannot see, feel, and measure.
Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?
As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world.
Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.
Islam makes the same claim about the Quran as you do about the Bible. Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God. Obviously you cannot for it is, as I said above, the truth revealed about the physical reality that validates the truth about the spiritual reality. Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle. It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles.
So whether you want to admit it or not, your very basis for faith in God of the Scriptures is based upon science and the physical reality that it establishes.
: AVZ Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 22:36:35
If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.
Very good AVZ.
Barbarian said that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible." So, I predict that Barbarian would agree that something popping into existence in a space that does not exist is possible. The non-scientist Christian would. But, I doubt if he actually will. The overwhelming scientific evidence of a several billion year old universe compels and directs what he believes about that.
I do believe that it crossed the mind of scientists that, there was in the beginning, something that exist from eternity from which all things came and started to be created from. For whatever theory they come up with always comes from an existing "something". They just don't want to deal with the matter as to where that "something" came from or speak of an eternal "something".
: Alan Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 05:41:12
Why do you not mention all of the (supposedly) scientific claims that support YE creation? If science should be separated from scripture, then to a faithful man such as yourself, the YE creationist scientific claims should hold no more weight than any other research and study, be it 6000 years or billions of years.
I haven't really heard of what the YE creationist scientific claims are. It's not really about whether who is right of the two sides of the controversy. But that, what matters is what God says in scriptures. I am convinced that the matter of creation is not for us to know nor spend our time trying to know more than what God has told us in scriptures. I am convinced that what God has revealed is more than sufficient to convey His message on creation.
And I don't say neither, that science should or should not be separated from scriptures. What I said in my post is what scientists, like Barbarian told this board with regards science in relation to God, that science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God.
: AVZ Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 22:36:35
You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory. It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best. What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.
The existence of a singularity in a space that does not exist violates any principle of the laws of nature we know of.
We don't know if time itself did not exist within that singularity, but something must have existed within the event itself to make the event happen.
The assumption is that the gravitational forces within the singularity must have been tremendously huge, but that would mean gravity existed before it could exist.
These are the dilemma's science is trying to deal with, but no satisfactory answer is found and neither can any of this be proven.
If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
In fact the earth could have popped into existence, and the stars, and planets, and animals, and trees.
They could have popped into existence one shortly after the other, or maybe with millions of years between them.
The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.
What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.
We do know that right at the start of this universe they were not like what they are today.
Now you argue that there is no such thing as time before the big bang, but really who is to tell?
If a singularity can pop into existence, then anything could have popped into existence before the singularity.
And who is to tell that during the big bang things only started to exist? It would be wholly possible that in the big bang things that were ceased to exist.
If it is reasonable to believe a big bang, then it is equally reasonable to believe the opposite.
The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.
They could be constant for now, but that's no guarantee they will always be or were before.
With all due respect, most of that is little more than a statement of what you do not know. You said, "If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist." If you think about that for just a bit, you will see the error in it. Popping into a space that doesn't exist?? What sort of silliness is that? The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist. Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time. Energy, space and time together with the rules governing them was the big bang. That was the creation of the physical universe. That is what God did. That was God's creation. A very remarkable accomplishment to say the least.
: Michael2012 Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 06:06:40
I haven't really heard of what the YE creationist scientific claims are. It's not really about whether who is right of the two sides of the controversy. But that, what matters is what God says in scriptures. I am convinced that the matter of creation is not for us to know nor spend our time trying to know more than what God has told us in scriptures. I am convinced that what God has revealed is more than sufficient to convey His message on creation.
And I don't say neither, that science should or should not be separated from scriptures. What I said in my post is what scientists, like Barbarian told this board with regards science in relation to God, that science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God.
Thanks for that Michael. Science definitely verifies God's creation but it cannot account for every instance written in His word. Attempting to quantify "literal"scriptural interpretations via science is as absurd as saying that God did not create all things.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 05:45:32
From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?
Yes, most definitely; at several levels in fact. When God speaks about the sun and the moon, it is about physical reality. So then when we read in Ecclesiastes that "the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Eccl 1:5). , we know that the writer is not speaking about the real motion of the sun, but rather about the rotation of the earth whether or not the author knew anything about it. It also lets us know that heaven is not a physical place somewhere above the earth, no matter how any scriptures might seem to present it as that.
I disagree sir. Here we differ in our reading. What I think the ancient people know and understand, and I included, what the writer speaks about in the verse cited, is based upon man's experience of the sun. Nothing of any scientific sense there.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 05:45:32
Then there is the authenticity of the Scriptures that are borne out from a knowledge of archaeology or history. One should never forget that the bulk of what is given us in the Scriptures is about physical reality. It is, after all, the truth, properly rendered and evaluated, of what we can see, feel, and measure that gives us the trust in the truth of all that we cannot see, feel, and measure.As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world.Islam makes the same claim about the Quran as you do about the Bible. Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God. Obviously you cannot for it is, as I said above, the truth revealed about the physical reality that validates the truth about the spiritual reality. Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle. It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles.
The authenticity of the extant manuscripts of God's words may well be important to determine. But the truth of God's words does not depend on that. I believe that God supernaturally takes care of the words He caused to be written in scriptures for the benefit of His children. I depend on His wisdom and ways, and especially on the Holy Spirit, and on angels who ministers to the saints, to those who will inherit salvation. I have accepted the gospel and embraced the truth, God, and Christ, by faith, without any question of scientific concerns regarding the authenticity of the scriptural manuscripts, nor the correctness of their selection and translation. Having begun in the Spirit and have been strengthened by Him, must I now find strength in science made by man? Whether science tells me that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that the scriptures are indeed the words of God, it really does not make much of a difference to me now. Likewise, if science shows evidence to the contrary, there is no difference, except that I am faced with an enemy of the faith, something to fight against.
You said "As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world." I disagree. While I can agree that what scriptures say about the physical world, somehow points that said scriptures actually came from God, it is not as you say as the only way to know that. If there is any thing that make us know that the scriptures actually came from God is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
You said "Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God." Just reading some portions of the Quran would convince any child of God that the Quran is not the word of God.
You said " Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle. It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles." Can anyone of us, by science even, prove now that Mary actually existed and was a virgin when she conceived Jesus? I believe it just as the scriptures says. Whether that is a miracle or not is really not what matters. Now, if later, scientists points evidences showing that Mary was a virgin or not a virgin, would that really matter to you?
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 05:45:32
So whether you want to admit it or not, your very basis for faith in God of the Scriptures is based upon science and the physical reality that it establishes.
I don't have to admit anything on that regard. It may well be for you that your basis for faith in God of the scriptures is upon science. You speak for yourself. I for one does not base my faith in God upon science. I am not even a scientist as Barbarian is. And I'm pretty sure that many many more Christians, who are not scientists like me, like I, had faith in God, upon hearing the gospel which they accepted, having been convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin, righteousness, and judgement, in their heart.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 06:09:14
With all due respect, most of that is little more than a statement of what you do not know. You said, "If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist." If you think about that for just a bit, you will see the error in it. Popping into a space that doesn't exist?? What sort of silliness is that? The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist. Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time. Energy, space and time together with the rules governing them was the big bang. That was the creation of the physical universe. That is what God did. That was God's creation. A very remarkable accomplishment to say the least.
Just want to make a small comment:
You said "Popping into a space that doesn't exist?? What sort of silliness is that? The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist. Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time."
If space began to exist with the big bang, then there was no space before it. So what does the singularity scientist speak about occupy or where was it, if space was not yet? Scientists even describes this singularity as a singularity of
infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe. Can't you see what they are saying? Speaking of infinite things which even the Christian scientist, I suppose, cannot really define nor fully define, just like the eternal God.
Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?
: Michael2012 Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 07:31:10
Just want to make a small comment:
You said "Popping into a space that doesn't exist?? What sort of silliness is that? The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist. Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time."
If space began to exist with the big bang, then there was no space before it. So what does the singularity scientist speak about occupy or where was it, if space was not yet? Scientists even describes this singularity as a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe. Can't you see what they are saying? Speaking of infinite things which even the Christian scientist, I suppose, cannot really define nor fully define, just like the eternal God.
Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?
Michael, that you asked that question, shows that you have had no exposure to the world of science and mathematics. A "singularity" is the designation for something that doesn't really exist. You might start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
You asked,
Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?
That, Michael, was the big bang. The size, the dimension, of the "space" was zero, or very close to it. It doesn't need to be exactly zero because what filled it was not infinite.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 08:13:27
Michael, that you asked that question, shows that you have had no exposure to the world of science and mathematics. A "singularity" is the designation for something that doesn't really exist.
If a singularity is the designation for something that doesn't really exist, so what then is the sense of designating that which does not exist? And further say that this designated non-existent something expand in the Big Bang? How could anything come out of something that does not really exist? Would not anything that comes from a non-existent something be non-existent as well?
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 08:13:27
Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and all there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?
You asked, That, Michael, was the big bang. The size, the dimension, of the "space" was zero, or very close to it. It doesn't need to be exactly zero because what filled it was not infinite.
So, are you saying that space really was not non-existent after all and there was really space to begin with? You are not making much sense to me. Perhaps because I don't have the mind of a scientist.
Anyway, would you at least say it is possible that God, out of nothing, spoke and all that there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist, and exactly how things are, move and behave as they are at present and as observed?
: Alan Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:38:10
I'm not minimizing your credentials by any means, I was pointing out that testing is performed in multiple instances and multiple environments prior to verification. The effort to remove "error" is very high.
""Fallible dating methods" is just another religious misinterpretation turned hyperbole." - This is the arrogant argument I was talking about.
Dating methods are fallible. They are based upon a mathematical model and assumptions are made. Are there points on the curve where they are accurate? Absolutely. But that doesn't negate that there are assumptions made. That it is a model, and that we are making assumptions that it carries through on all parts of the curve for later dating. Scientists are making their best possible estimates, but in the end it cannot be verified.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 16:52:40
If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable? If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that. For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric tests.
Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods. As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range. Simply not true with radiometric dating. You cannot verify if something is 578 million years old or 588 million years old.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 26, 2017 - 17:34:18
Yep. It's not much comfort for creationists, if a date turns out to be 578 million years, compared to 588 million years.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/63561461/so-what-youre-saying-is-you-believe-in-science-.jpg)
: Texas Conservative Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 09:40:33
Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range. Simply not true with radiometric dating. You cannot verify if something is 578 million years old or 588 million years old.
I doubt that the instruments that you use are accurate to within 0.3%. Some of the newer, better digital voltmeters may be a little better than 1% but I doubt they are accurate to within 0.3%.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:14:01
I doubt that the instruments that you use are accurate to within 0.3%. Some of the newer, better digital voltmeters may be a little better than 1% but I doubt they are accurate to within 0.3%.
That wasn't my point at all, and I never claimed any were accurate to within 0.3%.
: Michael2012 Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 09:18:25Anyway, would you at least say it is possible that God, out of nothing, spoke and all that there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist, and exactly how things are, move and behave as they are at present and as observed?
Yes, Michael, I truly believe that He could have done that. That would certainly have been within His power to do so. But God, Himself, says
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork"(Psa 19:1) . And that declaration and proclamation presents us with the information and data that says He didn't do that. So that if that is what He actually did, then the declaration of the heavens that the proclamations of the sky are, without a doubt, deceptive. And I am just absolutely positive God is not deceptive.
: Texas Conservative Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:17:54
That wasn't my point at all, and I never claimed any were accurate to within 0.3%.
Then I think you didn't bother to look at the web site he posted. Or if it was that you were simply point out that the measurements were based on models and assumptions, you might be surprised to find that is true for those instruments you use as well. Besides, what is the meaning of your statement,
Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range.
How accurate? Within 20%? Within 10%? The statement that they are accurate is meaningless.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:36:49
Then I think you didn't bother to look at the web site he posted. Or if it was that you were simply point out that the measurements were based on models and assumptions, you might be surprised to find that is true for those instruments you use as well. Besides, what is the meaning of your statement, How accurate? Within 20%? Within 10%? The statement that they are accurate is meaningless.
If you learned reading comprehension, I think you would grasp what I was saying. Since my point was valid, you are trying to find some reasons to argue.
: Texas Conservative Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:39:02If you learned reading comprehension, I think you would grasp what I was saying. Since my point was valid, you are trying to find some reasons to argue.
Yes, your point that radiographic methods depend upon models and assumptions is indeed valid. That is true for nearly every method for measurement except for direct counting techniques. But that does not invalidate the methods. I am not arguing with you. I am simply showing why you are wrong.
If you believe the link below I have a great house to sell you in the land of Oz
btw: $10,000 deposite required up front
https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/09/26/636104905812273029522410039_evolution-005.jpg
: tooldtocare Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 14:23:05
If you believe the link below I have a great house to sell you in the land of Oz
btw: $10,000 deposite required up front
https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/09/26/636104905812273029522410039_evolution-005.jpg (https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/09/26/636104905812273029522410039_evolution-005.jpg)
It's much more plausible than thinking we are the result of aliens, at least there exists evidence for evolution that can be argued for or against, alien seeding is just a bad dream.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:24:26
Yes, Michael, I truly believe that He could have done that. That would certainly have been within His power to do so. But God, Himself, says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork"(Psa 19:1) . And that declaration and proclamation presents us with the information and data that says He didn't do that. So that if that is what He actually did, then the declaration of the heavens that the proclamations of the sky are, without a doubt, deceptive. And I am just absolutely positive God is not deceptive.
So you are convinced through science that God did not do that. And perhaps you are also convinced that God did not create Adam in adult age form, as that would be deceptive to you. Things seem to be deceptive that way, because you began with science, what science tells you, as that of the matter of age. But if you begin with God, that would not at all be deceptive.
Of course God is not deceptive nor is a deceiver. Between God and what science says, if there is that deceives or is deceptive, it's certainly not God. God creating Adam in adult age form is not deceptive at all nor when God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind on the SAME DAY He created man. Why will God be deceptive if He created things by His word just the way they are? Now the scientists, through their work with science, have taught the world, that something is a million years old or billion years old, by means of their scientific dating methods. And many were convinced with such knowledge, so that they believe in whatever science tells them about age, with a confidence strong enough as if they knew it for a fact. God knows for a fact how old things were and what He created and when. They don't. They are just guessing. No matter what they do, they will never know things only God knows. If there is any deception, it is not coming from God but from the one with the guesswork.
God since the creation, had made Himself known to man through the things He created and later through His words spoken by the prophets, and in the last days spoken to us by His Son. And so God may be known from ancient times according to these revelations. And He will be known by the same revelations today and until He comes. So, if there is any teaching of any new knowledge about God other than what had been revealed for man to see and know, beware of such doctrine.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:45:53
Yes, your point that radiographic methods depend upon models and assumptions is indeed valid. That is true for nearly every method for measurement except for direct counting techniques. But that does not invalidate the methods. I am not arguing with you. I am simply showing why you are wrong.
You havent shown that I am wrong.
I looked at a data sheet for accuracy rating for an industry revenue grade meter. At 25C, it was accurate to within 0.5%. And verifiable across the entire range.
You simply cannot verify measurements of time for millions of years ago.
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 06:09:14
With all due respect, most of that is little more than a statement of what you do not know. You said, "If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist." If you think about that for just a bit, you will see the error in it. Popping into a space that doesn't exist?? What sort of silliness is that? The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist. Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time. Energy, space and time together with the rules governing them was the big bang. That was the creation of the physical universe. That is what God did. That was God's creation. A very remarkable accomplishment to say the least.
I think it is you who is arguing illogically.
A body cannot exist if there is no space to exist in.
So if there is a singularity that exists, then it also requires space to exist in.
So if you say that space itself started to exist with the big bang, then prior to the big bang space did not exist.
Hence, the singularity popped into existence in a space that did not exist.
To say that time began to exist with the big bang is an assumption. It is not empirical truth.
First of all science already admits that when speaking of a singularity, the present natural laws we know of break apart.
We simply do not know if there were or were not any laws of nature at work, all we do know is that the laws we know of today would not work in such a scenario.
Fact is that some law must have been in place. Ask yourself the question, if science says that the singularity was enormously dense, how could it be dense if nothing made it dense?
Or was it just dense by itself for no reason? Then if today nothing can be dense by itself for no reason, then you have a perfect example of how the laws of nature changed.
But back to your claim that time did not exist prior to the big bang.
Fact is, you simply do not know.
If it is possible for a body to pop into existence, then it is also possible for a body to pop out of existence.
Can you say with 100% certainty that there was not an existing universe in which were time and gravity, in which the singularity popped into existence?
And the moment the singularity expanded, the old universe popped out of existence or merged with the new one?
What we are talking about here is an oscillating universe and it is in fact a scientific model that is proposed and studied.
Many top scientists support such a theory and consider it valid, so since you find yourself guided by science on these matters...why would you invoke God?
Science give you a perfectly acceptable theory for the existence of our universe.
Point is that you are inconsistent.
You say that science provides the answers, but at some point even you reject science and invoke a Creator.
So what's the difference between you and I? Why can you reject science at some stage...and you tell me I cannot at my stage?
Let me ask you a question.
What if science provides us the perfect model, where the conservation of time and the laws of nature are explained...but the model is an eternal oscillating universe.
(I am not being absurd here: it is in fact the leading theory at the moment) Would you accept that scientific explanation?
And if you do not accept it...why?
: 4WD Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 12:24:26
And I am just absolutely positive God is not deceptive.
So what you do is declare Genesis as allegorical because it does not tally with science.
That way you can conserve God as being not deceptive, and follow the scientific theories.
But then Genesis would have been deceptive to all generations who did not have science and who believed literally what Genesis says.
To them God was indeed deceptive.
: AVZ Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 22:31:13
So what you do is declare Genesis as allegorical because it does not tally with science.
That way you can conserve God as being not deceptive, and follow the scientific theories.
But then Genesis would have been deceptive to all generations who did not have science and who believed literally what Genesis says.
To them God was indeed deceptive.
So what is the answer then? Is science completely wrong and and scientists purport their claims to fulfill an agenda?
: AVZ Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 22:31:13
So what you do is declare Genesis as allegorical because it does not tally with science.
How does Genesis not tally with science?
I find the Word of God to be scientifically accurate.
: AVZ Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 22:31:13So what you do is declare Genesis as allegorical because it does not tally with science.
That way you can conserve God as being not deceptive, and follow the scientific theories.
But then Genesis would have been deceptive to all generations who did not have science and who believed literally what Genesis says.
To them God was indeed deceptive.
Forget about science for the moment. Do you think it was a snake [a serpent] that spoke to Eve? Or do you think it was Satan speaking through a snake? Or do you think that it was just Satan and there was not really any actual snake or serpent involved at all? What do you think the first hearers or readers of Genesis thought who spoke to Eve?
Or how about the cherubim and that flaming sword guarding the tree of life; is that still there? Or what was the tree of life? Or what was the the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Were those real honest to goodness trees? Just curious about your thoughts on these?
And the curse placed upon the ground? Genesis says that curse was thorns and thistles. Now that doesn't sound all that onerous to me. What do you think? Was that the literal extent of the curse? And for what its worth, where in all of this does it say anything about Adam's sin literally doing anything more than that to the ground, to the earth or to the universe?
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 05:27:32
Forget about science for the moment. Do you truly believe that it was a snake [a serpent] that spoke to Eve? Or do you think it was Satan speaking through a snake? Or do you think that it was just Satan and there was not really any snake or serpent actually involved at all? What do you think the first hearers or readers of Genesis thought who spoke to Eve?
Of course it was a serpent that spoke to Eve, possessed by Satan.
Scripture records a speaking animal, and possession of animals by demons elsewhere, so it is well within a Biblical framework that a real snake spoke to Eve.
: Alan Wed Dec 27, 2017 - 23:09:22
So what is the answer then? Is science completely wrong and and scientists purport their claims to fulfill an agenda?
Yes, when it comes to evolution scientists are completely wrong and they are fulfilling an agenda.
: AVZ Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 05:32:43
Of course it was a serpent that spoke to Eve, possessed by Satan.
Scripture records a speaking animal, and possession of animals by demons elsewhere, so it is well within a Biblical framework that a real snake spoke to Eve.
OK. But the only record that I know of where an animal spoke, it was by the power of the Holy Spirit. Tell me, do you think Satan still speaks through snakes?
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 05:55:52
OK. But the only record that I know of where an animal spoke, it was by the power of the Holy Spirit. Tell me, do you think Satan still speaks through snakes?
The Bible says he did, what does it matter what I think?
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 05:55:52
Tell me, do you think Satan still speaks through snakes?
Tell me do you know of any animal... not bird.... that has been reported to actually speak anything since the bible recordings of such? ::doh::
(I am not speaking of the 2 legged variety that Satan's demons possess that cause all sorts of terrors on living things)
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 05:55:52
OK. But the only record that I know of where an animal spoke, it was by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So what are you trying to say? That it was actually the Holy Spirit who spoke through the snake and deceived Eve?
: AVZ Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 07:12:33
So what are you trying to say? That it was actually the Holy Spirit who spoke through the snake and deceived Eve?
Why would you ask that? Where do you read that I said that?
: Ginger Rella Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 07:08:45Tell me do you know of any animal... not bird.... that has been reported to actually speak anything since the bible recordings of such? ::doh::
(I am not speaking of the 2 legged variety that Satan's demons possess that cause all sorts of terrors on living things)
I personally don't think that any animal spoke literally to Eve. I think the serpent in Genesis 2 is the same "ancient serpent" that John talked about in Revelation 12:9.
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 07:16:21
Why would you ask that? Where do you read that I said that?
Well, you said that the only time an animal spoke in scripture besides the serpent in Genesis, the event was triggered by the Holy Spirit.
So I guess that since I knew you want to dismiss Satan as the instigator for the speaking serpent, the logical conclusion was that the Holy Spirit must have done it.
Apparently you have found another reason to dismiss the speaking serpent...declaring it allegorical.
And we have arrived at what I said before: Evolutionists don't like Genesis, so they declare it allegorical.
Any particular reason for that? Nope.
It just doesn't tally with what science says, and since something has to give way...Genesis it is.
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 07:21:55
I personally don't think that any animal spoke literally to Eve. I think the serpent in Genesis 2 is the same "ancient serpent" that John talked about in Revelation 12:9.
Yep, and John even tells us in Revelation 12:9 who the serpent is...
"The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called
the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
So who do you think the serpent was in Genesis?
: AVZ Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 08:33:21
Yep, and John even tells us in Revelation 12:9 who the serpent is...
"The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
So who do you think the serpent was in Genesis?
I think the reference to the serpent in Genesis was metaphorically speaking of Satan. I certainly do not think that Satan is a serpent. But perhaps you do.
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 09:19:27
I think the reference to the serpent in Genesis was metaphorically speaking of Satan.
And what is the compelling reason for you to think this?
Are you doubting the account given in Genesis is not possible, or not plausible?
Or does it somehow inconveniences you?
If the account is Genesis was a literal event, how would you propose God should have formulated the message differently so it would have been more clear?
: AVZ Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 10:49:54
And what is the compelling reason for you to think this?
For the same reason I think the reference in Revelation 12:9 is metaphorical.
Are you doubting the account given in Genesis is not possible, or not plausible?
Or does it somehow inconveniences you?
I am not doubting the account given in Genesis. I just think your intepretation of it is seriously flawed.
If the account is Genesis was a literal event, how would you propose God should have formulated the message differently so it would have been more clear?
Why engage in such a hypothetical? What purpose would that serve? But if you are interested in such things, try this hypothetical; given that the big bang is the actual method that God used to create the universe, and given the modern scientific knowledge used to explain it today, how might God have described that event to the ancient Hebrew?
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
The Earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.
http://christiannews.net/2016/02/22/295-million-year-old-silk-recent-discovery-could-be-problematic-for-evolutionists/
295 Million Year Old Silk? Recent Discovery Could Be Problematic for Evolutionists
http://dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html
2. The Paradox of Large Dinosaurs
Applying Science to Understanding Large Dinosaurs
When we go back in time to the Mesozoic era, the world of dinosaurs becomes a magical place. It is as if the laws of physics no longer apply so as to allow the dinosaurs to grow to gigantic size.
The bone fossils giving evidence of the previous existence of monstrous terrestrial vertebrates has confused the science community. In all likelihood, if dinosaur fossils had never been discovered the science community would have long ago 1) included and emphasized in science education the teaching of Galileo's Square-Cube Law showing how size matters, and 2) concluded that the largest terrestrial animals of today are pushing the limit in regards to size.
The brightest scientists strongly feel that our reality is rational, and so they become intrigued if ever the evidence does not seem to make sense. Their curiosity as to why something seems out of place often leads them to making great discoveries. One might say that the first step on the road to a Nobel Prize in science begins with the statement "that's odd".
The exceptionally large size of the terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is not a subtle oddity to be dismissed but rather it is a glaring paradox that must be investigated. The essence of science - our belief that we exist in a rational reality - is at stake here.
Something must have been different about the world during the Mesozoic era so as to allow terrestrial animals to grow so much larger. This line of reasoning should make us wonder if there is other evidence indicating that during the Mesozoic era that the world was a dramatically different place. While we do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves the author will address the immediate curiosity by stating that yes there are other indicators that the world during the Mesozoic era was quite different from the present. To give one example, consider the global climate of Mesozoic era. For all practical purposes, everywhere on the Earth's surface the temperature was the same. There was no ice at the poles nor was there ice at the top of the highest mountains. From the equator to the poles, and from the lowest dry valley to the highest mountain, there was no more than a few degrees difference in temperature. There are other sets of evidence as well. The gigantic dinosaurs and pterosaurs is just one of several sets of evidence giving testimony indicating that the Earth during the Mesozoic era was a very different world.
The focus of this chapter is to explain the physical limitations restricting the size of the terrestrial animals of today, thus clarifying why the gigantic animals of the Mesozoic era presents a scientific paradox. Below is a list of specific issues this chapter will address. The first three issues give the evidence clarifying the anomaly of the dinosaurs being so large. The last listed issue regarding the flight of pterosaurs will be taken up in the next chapter since the paradox of how the pterosaurs flew only becomes clear after a discussion of the science of flight.
There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:
Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs
Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs
Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs
Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown
Before starting on the first issue listed above, there needs to be a discussion of what is the mass of various dinosaurs. It would be most helpful to have accurate mass estimates of the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods.
The above is of course not a problem for YE creationists. We understand that the world was a very different place before the flood, and that as the bible testifies, there were giants in those days. The proof is everywhere in the fossil records. The world was different, things lived much longer, and grew much larger. A truly scientific mind would not discount the very real possibility that there was a former world quite obviously very different from this one which was wiped out just as scripture declares. Nevertheless, scripture predicted a specific trait of the delusion which is evolutionary theory.
2 Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/all-those-new-dinosaurs-may-not-be-new-or-dinosaurs/
All Those New Dinosaurs May Not Be New — Or Dinosaurs
But while that rate of discovery might delight 8-year-olds, it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of the ancient world. Eight years ago, Benton published two papers on the error rate in dinosaur species identification and found that 48.2 percent of "new dinosaurs" are eventually cast aside, deemed invalid for a variety of reasons (see the chart below). That's far above the rate for living species, which is only 20 percent.............................
Benton told me the 48 percent error rate applies to dinosaurs named between 1850 and 1980. That's because there's been enough time since then for other researchers to cock an eyebrow, poke at the data and declare it wrong. Everything that's been found in the last 36 years, in contrast, is more of a mystery. We think it has a lower error rate than the older research, but we don't know for certain because there hasn't been enough time to thoroughly vet it. Meanwhile, in that same period, the number of dinosaurs being named has exploded like an asteroid in the Yucatan.
: 4WD Thu Dec 28, 2017 - 12:15:08
For the same reason I think the reference in Revelation 12:9 is metaphorical.I am not doubting the account given in Genesis. I just think your intepretation of it is seriously flawed.Why engage in such a hypothetical? What purpose would that serve? But if you are interested in such things, try this hypothetical; given that the big bang is the actual method that God used to create the universe, and given the modern scientific knowledge used to explain it today, how might God have described that event to the ancient Hebrew?
So let's extrapolate the metaphor a bit, and I assume you have no objection to this.
There was no real serpent, its a metaphor for Satan
There was no real fruit, its a metaphor for the all present change to do something against God's will
There was no real tree, its a metaphor for the event that presents us the option to do something evil.
There was no real garden, its a metaphor for an environment in which God takes prime position
There was no real Satan, its a metaphor for our inner desire to do something evil
There was no real Eve and Adam, its a metaphor for the human race
Now all these come from the same small chapter in the Bible telling us about the Fall.
One player however I have not listed, but logically if all subjects in the chapter are metaphors, than the last one quite possibly is too.
There was no real God, its a metaphor for the good we people can do to ourselves or those around us.
My question is: If you indeed take one part of the same event and declare it a metaphor, then by what reason would you argue the other parts are not?
Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw the line where you draw it?
Finally your question how God could have described the big bang to the Hebrews? Very simple, just say what happened.
Genesis 1:1 (4WD style)
1: In the beginning God initiated the existence of heaven and earth
2: Now there was nothing and the Spirit of God looked at the nothing
3: And God said "Let there be a speck containing all the building blocks of the universe". And there was a speck. And God looked at the speck and saw it was good.
4: And God said "Let the speck explode and form the universe". And the speck exploded. And God looked at the explosion and saw it was a good explosion.
5: And God said "Let the universe bring forth all living things over time". And living things evolved from the universe.
6: And God rested from His work for a while
7: And God saw that the universe had brought forth a living being worthy of salvation
8: And God gave a soul to the worthy being and called them "humans"
9: And God saw that all that had happened was good, and He took a step back to let nature run it's course.
You think the ancient Hebrews could not have understood such a story?
So now my challenge to you. Lets assume the accounts in Genesis as they are written down are literal...what could God have done to make it more clear to you that it was literal?
Would you have preferred an additional verse to Genesis chapter 1 saying something like:
32: "The above really, really, really happened this way, literally"
All that tells me is that you don't know what God actually said about His creation nor do you know anything about the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be.
You would have fit right in with the Catholic Church in the 1600 when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake and confined Galileo Galilei to house arrest because, among other things, they disagreed with the church's interpretation of God's word which they claimed said without question that the earth was the center of the solar system. That was 400 years ago; and yet such errors in interpretation of God's word continues.
But if you are interested in such things, try this hypothetical; given that the big bang is the actual method that God used to create the universe, and given the modern scientific knowledge used to explain it today, how might God have described that event to the ancient Hebrew?
The above reveals the true sentiment of evolutionary theory, and the hight of delusion regarding the same. The creature believing itself better qualified to explain the truth of its origin, than the creator. Thus ultimately making itself God. God couldn't find the right words or present the right evidence to teach the Hebrews the truth of humanities origins, so He had to make up a story for them until man himself evolved enough I suppose, to surpass God's ability and finally explain it to himself. Thus the superior knowledge of the modern prophets of God, the scientists. Oh, my bad, the superior knowledge of the new Gods, the evolutionary scientists who have now surpassed the abilities of there creator to understand and explain the truth of our origins. All bow to the new Gods.
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 05:41:17
The above reveals the true sentiment of evolutionary theory, and the hight of delusion regarding the same. The creature believing itself better qualified to explain the truth of its origin, than the creator. Thus ultimately making itself God. God couldn't find the right words or present the right evidence to teach the Hebrews the truth of humanities origins, so He had to make up a story for them until man himself evolved enough I suppose, to surpass God's ability and finally explain it to himself. Thus the superior knowledge of the modern prophets of God, the scientists. Oh, my bad, the superior knowledge of the new Gods, the evolutionary scientists who have now surpassed the abilities of there creator to understand and explain the truth of our origins. All bow to the new Gods.
Jos 10:12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
Jos 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Hab 3:11 Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear.
Psa 19:4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
Psa 19:5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
Psa 19:6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.
1Ch 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Psa 93:1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.
Psa 96:10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. The above are but a few of the passages in God's word that clearly establish the fact that the earth sits stationery in its place with the sun moving across the earth. If you refuse to take God at His word and foolishly think the earth rotates about is own axis and revolves around the sun, then you must be a Godless Science-worshiper fighting vigorously against the nonsense of a creative god, espousing the superior knowledge of the new Gods, the
evolutionary astronomy scientists, who have now surpassed the abilities of their creator to understand and explain the truth of our
origins solar system. All bow to the new Gods. Welcome to the club Amo.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 04:55:51
All that tells me is that you don't know what God actually said about His creation nor do you know anything about the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be.
You would have fit right in with the Catholic Church in the 1600 when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake and confined Galileo Galilei to house arrest because, among other things, they disagreed with the church's interpretation of God's word which they claimed said without question that the earth was the center of the solar system. That was 400 years ago; and yet such errors in interpretation of God's word continues.
A truly ignorant statement. First and foremost because without bible believing Christians who brought about the Reformation and laid down their lives by the millions for their right to believe as they wished, you still might not have the freedoms you have today. Second, there is no comparison between what is now observable fact, and the theory of evolution which has never been observed, is not being observed, and remains to be seen if true. Third, what the Catholic church believed and believes, is not at all what bible believers have and do believe. Fourth, Catholics themselves were among those who disproved their own churches erroneous beliefs, albeit many suffering under her abusive nature for doing so.
Today, the Roman Catholic church is one of your staunchest supporters. The Pope himself acknowledging your theory as acceptable for all Catholics. Are you sure you should be bringing up the negative histories of such a strong supporter, and that you are so very different than they? Apparently you are no longer different concerning evolution.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang-theory-are-real-n235696
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:22:40
Are you sure you should be bringing up the negative histories of such a strong supporter, and that you are so very different than they?
I am just following your lead concerning the absolute adherence to the word of God. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, per se, but rather what does God's word tell us. And as you have tried to show us, you either believe what it says or you don't.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:09:14
Jos 10:12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
Jos 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Hab 3:11 Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear.
Psa 19:4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
Psa 19:5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
Psa 19:6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.
1Ch 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Psa 93:1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.
Psa 96:10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
The above are but a few of the passages in God's word that clearly establish the fact that the earth sits stationery in its place with the sun moving across the earth. If you refuse to take God at His word and foolishly think the earth rotates about is own axis and revolves around the sun, then you must be a Godless Science-worshiper fighting vigorously against the nonsense of a creative god, espousing the superior knowledge of the new Gods, the evolutionary astronomy scientists, who have now surpassed the abilities of their creator to understand and explain the truth of our origins solar system. All bow to the new Gods. Welcome to the club Amo.
Thank you, for further revealing your true disdain for God's word. Actually, the sun and the moon both move as well as this earth. Therefore, if in fact God did stop just this earth from moving, then it seems reasonable to assume the sun and moon would continue their movements. That is not what is recorded by those claiming to observe the same in scripture, who may or may not have understood that the earth revolves around the sun. In any case, it appeared to those observing, that the sun and moon stood still, which they would pretty much have to do, in order to look like they did even if this earth stood still. By the way, did you happen to observe the sunrise or sunset today?
https://www.universetoday.com/60174/does-the-sun-move/
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:36:55Actually, the sun and the moon both move as well as this earth.
And you know that how? A strict reading of God's word says that you are wrong.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:33:32
I am just following your lead concerning the absolute adherence to the word of God. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, per se, but rather what does God's word tell us. And as you have tried to show us, you either believe what it says or you don't.
Yes, one would be hard pressed in trying to prove the Catholic Church fully supported and believed all scripture. It seems you have such in common with them in this thing as well.
2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:47:57
Yes, one would be hard pressed in trying to prove the Catholic Church fully supported and believed all scripture. It seems you have such in common with them in this thing as well.
Are you really so dense?
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:41:17
And you know that how? A strict reading of God's word says that you are wrong.
No it does not, but perhaps in the agenda driven mind. Your point in using these scriptures is not to arrive at truth, but to defend a position you have already taken. Few who use the word of God to their own ends, instead of being instructed as the child they truly are in relation to them, end up rightly dividing the same. If any at all.
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:54:28No it does not....
Are you suggesting that there is anything contained in God's word is not to be taken in a literal sense?
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:41:17
And you know that how? A strict reading of God's word says that you are wrong.
No, a strict reading says that God's word is right. If in fact the sun and moon stood still in the sky, then God must have stopped their movement as well, since the earth, sun, and moon all move. Get your facts straight.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 07:11:46
Are you suggesting that there is anything contained in God's word is not to be taken in a literal sense?
No.
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 07:24:45No, a strict reading says that God's word is right. If in fact the sun and moon stood still in the sky, then God must have stopped their movement as well, since the earth, sun, and moon all move. Get your facts straight.
Facts? What facts?
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 07:26:16No.
so who decides which is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively? You?
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 06:36:55
Thank you, for further revealing your true disdain for God's word. Actually, the sun and the moon both move as well as this earth. Therefore, if in fact God did stop just this earth from moving, then it seems reasonable to assume the sun and moon would continue their movements. That is not what is recorded by those claiming to observe the same in scripture, who may or may not have understood that the earth revolves around the sun. In any case, it appeared to those observing, that the sun and moon stood still, which they would pretty much have to do, in order to look like they did even if this earth stood still. By the way, did you happen to observe the sunrise or sunset today?
https://www.universetoday.com/60174/does-the-sun-move/
Perhaps this question is relevant to the subject of this thread, how would creation have appeared to one observing, and what would be the result if those observations took place over six literal days. ::headscratch::
Dr. Hugh Ross has a very interesting look at this.
A relevant question in discussing Genesis, is by what means was the information gathered by the author. If it was dictated by God there is no reason that God could not have explained it clearly as mentioned by AVZ above, if however if the Genesis account was given by one that observed the events of creation... ::shrug::
From my perspective there are no winners or losers in this debate, both sides have brought up truly insightful points to support their positions.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 07:35:57
so who decides which is to be taken literally and which is to be taken figuratively? You?
The bible itself tells us many times when it is using symbols or allegories. Apart from such, or an extra ordinary compelling reason to do so, the is no reason to do so. Thinking God is not capable of creating the world in six days, or of explaining another way He did it, is not an extra ordinary compelling reason to make the creation and flood accounts such. Apart from this, when symbols or allegories are used in scripture, they should not contradict other plain testimony of scripture in relation to the same topic being addressed. If they do, they are not likely symbolic or allegorical in nature. To make them such makes God's word contradict itself. Though many are willing to do this to support what they have already chosen to believe, this is not rightly dividing the word of God, but rather simply using scripture for one's own ends.
The creation and flood accounts of the book of Genesis directly contradict the theoretical observations of fallen humanity in the theory of evolution. Do you really think that God couldn't do any better in an allegorical setting than the creation and flood account if in fact He really wanted us to understand the theory of evolution as established truth? This is again nothing short of bringing God down even below the level of fallen humanities abilities regarding the same. Still no doubt, you do not realize or consider how you cast down God before your supposed superior intellect, or exalt yourself above Him in these actions. You are not superior to God and or His chosen prophets of the past who delivered His testimony to us. You are among those prophesied in scripture as having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. You deny God's greatest act of power in the creation in six literal days, through the self exalted and promoted theory of fallen humanities origins create and sustained by fallen humanity itself. God will destroy this tower of Babel built in defiance of God and his word as readily as He destroyed the first one by His personal appearance which will defy all the laws of nature and fallen humanities presumed superior intellect.
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 11:37:46Thinking God is not capable of creating the world in six days, or of explaining another way He did it, is not an extra ordinary compelling reason to make the creation and flood accounts such.
And there we have, once again, one of those straw-man arguments that really have nothing to do with anything. The theory of the big bang has nothing whatsoever to do with thinking God is incapable of creating in six days. But you will persist is such nonsense, building your entire argument around such straw-men.
: 4WD Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 12:22:41
And there we have, once again, one of those straw-man arguments that really have nothing to do with anything. The theory of the big bang has nothing whatsoever to do with thinking God is incapable of creating in six days. But you will persist is such nonsense, building your entire argument around such straw-men.
I was not addressing the big bang at all. I think you know that. All said was in reference to evolution not the big bang, though the article shared about the Pope did mention the big bang. Something like the big bang could have been part of the creative process, but we simply do not know. Nor of course do I subscribe to the time element of most big bangers. No pun intended.
https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end
Summary
Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.
So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them.
Evolution's engine, when properly understood, becomes evolution's end.
Barbarian said that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible." So, I predict that Barbarian would agree that something popping into existence in a space that does not exist is possible. The non-scientist Christian would. But, I doubt if he actually will. The overwhelming scientific evidence of a several billion year old universe compels and directs what he believes about that.
I do believe that it crossed the mind of scientists that, there was in the beginning, something that exist from eternity from which all things came and started to be created from. For whatever theory they come up with always comes from an existing "something". They just don't want to deal with the matter as to where that "something" came from or speak of an eternal "something".
In fact, the Big Bang theory was initially assailed by atheists. It was proposed by a Christian, it overturned the notion of an eternal universe, and it was consistent with Genesis.
Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life.
That's what we see happening. Over, and over again. Most mutations don't do much. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out. So no one is surprised when a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system evolves in a culture of bacteria by mutation and natural selection, or when a population of lizards evolve a new digestive organ in response to a different environment. That's how things work.
Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay
Don't tell the lizards. They've been happily digesting plant material,courtesy of their new spiral valve. They'd be so let down, to learn that it was actually "decay."
because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.
Don't tell the bacteria. They not only evolved a new enzyme, they later evolved a new regulator, so that the enzyme is produced only in the presence of the food source.
Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells.
You've been misled about that. The only time mutations are passed on, is when they happen to reproductive cells.
When direct observation contradicts one's beautiful hypothesis, the hypothesis loses.
From my perspective there are no winners or losers in this debate, both sides have brought up truly insightful points to support their positions.
Not long ago, on a different board, a very confirmed YE creationist made a valiant attempt to bridge the gap. He convinced me to give it a try. After a lot of work, it fell apart. The creationist outlook is so completely different than the scientific outlook, that there just isn't common ground for common descent. The best we could do was look at common descent within "kinds", like cats or dogs, or ungulates.
We ended up disagreeing respectfully, and even had some kind words for each other. And that was something everyone else found disconcerting.
4WD:
And you know that how? A strict reading of God's word says that you are wrong.
Amo
No it does not,..
Psalm 104:5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
You can observe evolution in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI
The sad thing is that there are some people who actually think that is about evolution.
: Texas Conservative Wed Jan 03, 2018 - 21:08:18
You can observe evolution in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI
Fun video. Of course it doesn't teach anything about evolution. But then, no one wants to be serious all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSLfBo_TTU
One can observe that evolution is a lie after watching the above video. Or of course one can determine that all the photos, documentation, and eye witness accounts in the video are lies also. Depending upon which faith one chooses.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Poor evolutionists have a tough time with difficult finds like the above. Not a problem for creationists though, do away with the silly time frame of evolution and there is no problem with this and other mysteries among evolutionists.
https://www.ancient-code.com/this-290-million-year-old-human-footprint-has-experts-baffled/
More mystery for those who reject Genesis creation account.
Fake, Fake, and FAKE!! rofl
: Alan Fri Jan 05, 2018 - 20:18:27
Fake, Fake, and FAKE!! rofl
Of course it is, an evolutionist says so.
Poor evolutionists have a tough time with difficult finds like the above.
The find reinforces the other findings of transitional hominins in Africa. If one of them had developed a human-like foot earlier than the Australopithecines who left their tracks at Laetoli, it's interesting, but not incompatible with the trend we see in human evolution at the time.
Not a problem for creationists though
As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, these data are a huge problem for creationism, and what he calls strong evidence for evolution.
: The Barbarian Fri Jan 05, 2018 - 21:05:23
The find reinforces the other findings of transitional hominins in Africa. If one of them had developed a human-like foot earlier than the Australopithecines who left their tracks at Laetoli, it's interesting, but not incompatible with the trend we see in human evolution at the time.
As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, these data are a huge problem for creationism, and what he calls strong evidence for evolution.
Nothing is a problem for evolution, since it constantly evolves whenever necessary due to exposed erroneous ideas. Perhaps these are problems for Kurt, I don't know. Fallen humanities speculations regarding the theories they have chosen to place their faith in, are just that, fallen humanities speculations. I pace little faith in such speculations which have been so very wrong so very many times. There is no finding human foot prints anywhere at the wrong time for creationists. This could only be a problem for evolutionists, if evolution didn't continually evolve so much itself. When they are wrong they forget, revise, move on, and claim their present "truth" as undeniable scientific fact. It works wonderfully in this fallen world, but it won't go over very well in the next world.
Australopithecines is a fake
: Amo Fri Dec 29, 2017 - 11:37:46The creation and flood accounts of the book of Genesis directly contradict the theoretical observations of fallen humanity in the theory of evolution.
No they do not. But your interpretation of those accounts certainly is in conflict with the most reliable data available.
: 4WD Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 05:21:47
No they do not. But your interpretation of those accounts certainly is in conflict with the most reliable data available.
Yes I know, believing what it actually says is a faulty interpretation while believing it means evolution which is so very contrary to what it actually says because human speculation concerning data applied to the faith of evolution demonstrates the same. By the way, I don't believe any "Christian" evolutionists on these boards has given their interpretation of these accounts for us, would you care to do so? Just how do they support your evolutionary faith? Surely if you know the accounts do not mean what they plainly say, then you do know what they really mean, don't you? Please do explain your interpretation to us.
Thank you for admitting above that you consider fallen humanities speculations concerning data, more reliable than the word of God. Of course you could always tell us your interpretation of the creation and flood accounts, and perhaps we would better understand your tendency to place so much trust in fallen humanities observations concerning "data".
http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › The Global Flood Is the Key to the Past › Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation
The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary) compose the "standard geologic column" and are claimed by many to contain the major proof of evolutionary theory. Several erroneous notions have been attached to the geologic column. The following are the ten most common misconceptions.
Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.
Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.
The geologic column was not composed by assembling a chronology of "periods," "eras" or other supposed measures of time, but by superposition of objectively defined sequences of sedimentary strata called "systems." The "periods" and "eras" were later appended to the system nomenclature of the "geologic Column" transforming it into a "geologic time scale."
What makes the speculation of fallen humanity that the geological columns each represent vast periods of time, superior to the biblical account of the flood that would produce the same rapidly? Please explain also your interpretation of the biblical flood account which according to you is telling us of these vast time periods rather than the rapid formation of these columns one would expect if the account were to be taken for what it says at face value.
Thank you.
: Amo Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 10:27:30
What makes the speculation of fallen humanity that the geological columns each represent vast periods of time, superior to the biblical account of the flood that would produce the same rapidly?
The flood would not, could not, produce the same rapidly. It is only your "speculation of fallen humanity" that would even conjure up such a silly notion. The geological history presented in the walls of the Grand Canyon gives alternating periods of time represented by differing rock layers; those layers consisting of periods of shallow sea beds and intervening desert conditions.
: 4WD Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 12:59:47
The flood would not, could not, produce the same rapidly. It is only your "speculation of fallen humanity" that would even conjure up such a silly notion. The geological history presented in the walls of the Grand Canyon gives alternating periods of time represented by differing rock layers; those layers consisting of periods of shallow sea beds and intervening desert conditions.
So say you. What is the proof of this? Where are the signs of immense erosion in the layers that would be there if they took millions of years to form? How could they remain so evenly distributed over such vast areas as they are while natural erosion and no doubt many a natural disaster and or catastrophes would transpire during the million of years claimed to create them?
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/04/evolutions-influence-is-bad-news-for-your-health/
Evolution's Influence Is Bad News for Your Health
Evolution's dual myths of random causation and the king gene have not been good for biology, and they also have done damage elsewhere. In the area of human health, our cultural uptake of evolutionary ideas contributed to the dangerously flawed notion that health is a random affair. True, genetic mutations are capable of producing all kinds of diseases, but the vast majority of health issues stem from, or can be alleviated by, lifestyle and workplace decisions. In a great many cases, you are not what your genes say you are, but what you eat and how you live. Diet, stress, exercise, and exposure to toxins play an enormous role in determining your health history.
That shouldn't be a surprise. But too often it is completely missed or underemphasized, and an unfortunate example of this flawed evolutionary influence is our health care system and health insurance.
Our skyrocketing costs could be reduced by half or even an order of magnitude with proper education and personal decisions. Instead, our health is too often viewed as essentially the luck of the draw. For instance, billionaire Mark Cuban recently expressed this sentiment in advocating for healthcare as a legal right:
I believe that, given we all face the exact same genetic and wrong place, wrong time risks, coverage of most chronic and life-threatening illnesses or injuries should be a right.
In other words, everyone faces about the same healthcare risks. Our health is a crapshoot.
This is an astonishing demonstration of scientific ignorance. There is no doubt Cuban is very good at making money. But he fails to grasp the most basic aspects of human health. He can hardly be blamed, however, given how dominant this evolutionary myth has become. Evolution's influence is enormous, and that is bad news for more than just biology.
More problems caused by evolution than simply of faith it appears.
Another video about evilution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14Nhj05L90
And who consulted on this video on evolution? Legitimate scientists or religious creationists? Not everything on the internet is true. You have to consider the source.
: Open Heart Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 21:36:01
And who consulted on this video on evolution? Legitimate scientists or religious creationists? Not everything on the internet is true. You have to consider the source.
That's been my argument all along here, not a single credentialed scientist has made the claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk. For every claim that evolution is wrong, there are a thousand corrections for their error.
: Alan Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 02:08:39: Open Heart Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 21:36:01And who consulted on this video on evolution? Legitimate scientists or religious creationists? Not everything on the internet is true. You have to consider the source.
That's been my argument all along here, not a single credentialed scientist has made the claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk. For every claim that evolution is wrong, there are a thousand corrections for their error.
If you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" in the Genesis account of creation, there is absolutely no data whatsoever to suggest the universe is only 6000 years old.
And similarly, if you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "ehrets" in the Genesis account of the flood of Noah there is no data to suggest a global flood.
: 4WD Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 04:17:28
That's been my argument all along here, not a single credentialed scientist has made the claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk. For every claim that evolution is wrong, there are a thousand corrections for their error.
If you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" in the Genesis account of creation, there is absolutely no data whatsoever to suggest the universe is only 6000 years old.
And similarly, if you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "ehrets" in the Genesis account of the flood of Noah there is no data to suggest a global flood.
faulty YEC translation/interpretationAbsolutely correct.
And if these areas have had a faulty translation/interpretation , what other areas of the Bible have?
The written word is only as good as the comprehension of those who read it. Said understanding is surly debatable because NO two people read the same thing and understand the same way as others. That has certainly been demonstrated time and again right here on GC.
I have long maintained that the Holy Bible, while the inerrant word of God, is incomplete. Certain proofs of this are by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has 7 more books in the New Testament and additional verses in a couple o f Old Testament books that the Protestants leave out
And the Greek Orthodox has 4 more beyond the Roman Catholic.
A comparason chart is here. http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm
Now, for those Protestant purists on here... and I am one of you.... there are reasons the Protestant bible is shorter. But, that is not the reason for this reply, and only as an example of why I feel the Holy Bible, in and of itself is incomplete. Though not necessarily wrong at all.
I firmly believe that Genesis indicates that the earth likely is/can be far older then 6 or 7 thousand years.
As to the evolution of man from monkeys, NO. I would need to write a book to explain why that is surly unlikely based on the fact that first... there is not enough time in history past for the Darwinian ideas of evolution to have taken place, and second.. as we have commonly understood, save for a scant number of organisms, it takes a separate male and separate female to reproduce. New and newer species would have died out before a mate-able couple who have been produced, and if one was.... for every living thing in the bird, fish, and animal kingdom.... not enough time.
So... Billions of years is not long enough.... HOWEVER... I do believe that God very well could have been up there with his heavenly erector set,
Linclon logs, and play dough creating whatever and whom ever he wished.... or maybe with His heavenly chemistry set started the big bang expansion of things and that well could have been a heck of a long time... perhaps billions... or even trillions of years ago. Though the bible tells us God spoke things into existence....
IDK, I was not there and do have only the bible for guidance on that.
As to modern man.... I see that as being within the past 6,000 or 7,000 years. Beginning with Adam. (Not at all a contradiction of my above statement.)
But what difference does it make if the Bible is incomplete, or tanslated/interpreted wrong????
We are mortal people with souls and are looking forward to an eternal home with Jesus.
The Holy Bible is a basic handbook of how we should live to achieve that....
There is nothing in the Bible that alters the way we are supposed to live and what we are supposed to do. ::tippinghat::
: Open Heart Sat Jan 06, 2018 - 21:36:01
And who consulted on this video on evolution? Legitimate scientists or religious creationists? Not everything on the internet is true. You have to consider the source.
Its a creationist cartoon. Its not about credentials, its just a statement. Kind of like when evolutionists say their theory is indisputable fact.
: Alan Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 02:08:39
That's been my argument all along here, not a single credentialed scientist has made the claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk. For every claim that evolution is wrong, there are a thousand corrections for their error.
Shall we compose a list of the very numerous "credentialed" scientists that have been wrong throughout the past? Amazing, that you know every single "credentialed" scientist out there, and not one of them believes the creation account.
https://creation.com/creation-scientists
Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr Angel Duty, Biomedical engineering
Dr Chad Duty, Mechanical engineering
Robert H. Eckel, Medical research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Deborah (Debbie) Eisenhut, Medical missionary with SIM
Dr Edward Elmer, Orthopedic surgery specialist (Harvard Medical School graduate)
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Tim Gilmour, Electrical Engineer
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John G. Leslie, Biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear Physics
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology, Microbiology:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Ophthalmology
Dr Jim Mason, Nuclear Physics
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr David Pace, Organic Chemistry
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Matthew Young, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
Of course as is evident from scripture itself, numbers mean little to nothing in relation to truth. The vast majority have been, are, and will be deceived. Most by their own choice. Just look at the flood account. Oh, thats right, you don't believe the flood account, or the evidence all over the world which supports it. Never mind.
: 4WD Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 04:17:28
That's been my argument all along here, not a single credentialed scientist has made the claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk. For every claim that evolution is wrong, there are a thousand corrections for their error.
If you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" in the Genesis account of creation, there is absolutely no data whatsoever to suggest the universe is only 6000 years old.
And similarly, if you take away the faulty YEC translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "ehrets" in the Genesis account of the flood of Noah there is no data to suggest a global flood.
Already been through this faulty argument. There is no evidence on either side that can prove the age of the earth. Such requires unattainable evidence of the composition and atmosphere of the planet when originally created. Both the bible and many scientists agree that at one time in the past this world was very different than it now is.
We already know you think the bible should be interpreted according to your theory of evolution, and changing the apparent and obvious meaning of some words will help this. Still, you cannot and will not even attempt to explain the creation and flood accounts according to your evolutionary understanding. Context and consistency of other biblical testimony backing up the literal accounts throughout scripture, is a problem you ignore or apparently choose not to believe as well. You reason within your own mind apparently that the bible writers who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself, had knowledge and insight inferior to that of you and your evolutionist buddies. We creationists simply do not agree. Our faith is in the word of God, not the faulty reasoning and insight of fallen humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7enmGxNIp8
: Amo Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 09:30:56
Shall we compose a list of the very numerous "credentialed" scientists that have been wrong throughout the past? Amazing, that you know every single "credentialed" scientist out there, and not one of them believes the creation account.
https://creation.com/creation-scientists
Of course as is evident from scripture itself, numbers mean little to nothing in relation to truth. The vast majority have been, are, and will be deceived. Most by their own choice. Just look at the flood account. Oh, thats right, you don't believe the flood account, or the evidence all over the world which supports it. Never mind.
- You don't have the numbers. If you list ONLY those who have doctorates in RELEVANT fields, like biology, paleantology, genetics, anthropology... you only have a handful.
Your list even as it is, is so short that it is irrelevant. Do you know how many thousands of relevant scientists there are in the world?
Who do you think I'm going to believe? The paltry few relavant scientists on your list, or the plethora of relavent scientists who say evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (the means by how evolution happens) is the best we can do with current evidence.
: Open Heart Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 21:05:40
- You don't have the numbers. If you list ONLY those who have doctorates in RELEVANT fields, like biology, paleantology, genetics, anthropology... you only have a handful.
Your list even as it is, is so short that it is irrelevant. Do you know how many thousands of relevant scientists there are in the world?
Who do you think I'm going to believe? The paltry few relavant scientists on your list, or the plethora of relavent scientists who say evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (the means by how evolution happens) is the best we can do with current evidence.
Also, that is a list of "believers" but not a list of scientists that have contributed to the scientific community, they are no more relevant than you or I.
: Alan Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 21:08:43
Also, that is a list of "believers" but not a list of scientists that have contributed to the scientific community, they are no more relevant than you or I.
Quite possibly, there are plenty who have contributed to the scientific community.
: Open Heart Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 21:05:40
- You don't have the numbers. If you list ONLY those who have doctorates in RELEVANT fields, like biology, paleantology, genetics, anthropology... you only have a handful.
Your list even as it is, is so short that it is irrelevant. Do you know how many thousands of relevant scientists there are in the world?
Who do you think I'm going to believe? The paltry few relavant scientists on your list, or the plethora of relavent scientists who say evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (the means by how evolution happens) is the best we can do with current evidence.
Numbers of scientists in agreement with an ideology does not make something more correct. Galileo is a good example.
Any scientist who says evolution is a fact is a retard. If they say it is the best explanation with the current evidence, I buy that as a valid response.
Evolution's dual myths of random causation and the king gene have not been good for biology,
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. So this guy starts out with a foolish misconception. And it goes downhill from there...
and they also have done damage elsewhere. In the area of human health, our cultural uptake of evolutionary ideas contributed to the dangerously flawed notion that health is a random affair.
Apparently, he has no idea what modern medicine is like. No physician says health is just a matter of randommness.
True, genetic mutations are capable of producing all kinds of diseases, but the vast majority of health issues stem from, or can be alleviated by, lifestyle and workplace decisions. In a great many cases, you are not what your genes say you are, but what you eat and how you live. Diet, stress, exercise, and exposure to toxins play an enormous role in determining your health history.
Makes sense. That's what Darwin wrote.
Cuban is right that your likelihood of a catastrophic illness is a matter of probabilities. But as Darwin said, environment does matter to an organism, and so your choices can affect the odds.
This goes back to the point that most people who think they hate science, don't know anything about it.
Another video about evilution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14Nhj05L90
A classic mess of dishonesties.
Among the lies:
"Darwin doubted common descent"
"Mutation can't produce new information"
"Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
"Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
"T-rex red blood cells have been found."
"There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."
If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.
Any scientist who says evolution is a fact is a retard.
It's directly observed to happen. Can't get more sure than that. Just so we know, what do you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is?
The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationists to make. One way to see how bad it is, is to compare the numbers. Project Steve is a investigation that counts the number of scientists with a doctorate in biology or a related field who accept evolution, and are named "Steve" or some variant of the name.
Presently, there are (Barbarian checks) um, 1422 Steves on the list.
https://ncse.com/list-of-steves
How many Steves do you have? (Barbarian checks) You have 4.
About 0.2% of the Steves who accept evolution. But one of your Steves is an electrical engineer and one is a PhD in education. So actually about 0.1%
See why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 10:07:55
It's directly observed to happen. Can't get more sure than that. Just so we know, what do you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is?
No, we do not observe one species turned into another.
: Texas Conservative Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 10:27:07
No, we do not observe one species turned into another.
Evolution is not one species turning into another.
: 4WD Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Evolution is not one species turning into another.
rofl
: Texas Conservative Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 12:48:06
rofl
Hey TC, I love it when someone like you can laugh at himself.
: 4WD Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 13:11:49
Hey TC, I love it when someone like you can laugh at himself.
I am laughing at your attempts.
::tippinghat::
: 4WD Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Evolution is not one species turning into another.
Then please give us your definition of the word "evolution".
: Texas Conservative Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 14:14:07
I am laughing at your attempts.
::tippinghat::
Oh now, TC, you have disappointed me. Here I was thinking that you were a modest, live and let live kind of a guy who was not afraid to laugh at himself when he really screwed up. but alas.
: Open Heart Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 21:05:40
- You don't have the numbers. If you list ONLY those who have doctorates in RELEVANT fields, like biology, paleantology, genetics, anthropology... you only have a handful.
Your list even as it is, is so short that it is irrelevant. Do you know how many thousands of relevant scientists there are in the world?
Who do you think I'm going to believe? The paltry few relavant scientists on your list, or the plethora of relavent scientists who say evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (the means by how evolution happens) is the best we can do with current evidence.
Relevant according to who? As a professed believer I guess I expect you to do something silly like, believe the word of God. The words of the prophets, apostles, and Jesus. The book you claim your faith from, has stood at odds with the vast majority of this world at all times. As all those who have placed their faith in it have also. Yes, I expect you to have more faith in the word of God, than the majorities of this world. So does your God. It is not the best we can do with current evidence. It is the best this fallen world has produced apart from faith in God and His word, and you have chosen the best fallen humanity can offer in rejection of the testimony of those whom the bible claims spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.What do evolutionists demand, but that God must have created through a process of evolving things which may be seen according to their own understanding. This in direct contradiction to the testimony provided for them in the word of God. This also, while there are viable explanations also which are in harmony with God's testimony concerning the same. Go to, follow the numbers as those of Noah's day did also. Reject Jesus' testimony in favor of the observations of fallen humanity, revealing who your faith is truly in.
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Why will you reject the testimony of Jesus, while you profess to be His follower?
: Alan Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 21:08:43
Also, that is a list of "believers" but not a list of scientists that have contributed to the scientific community, they are no more relevant than you or I.
I am sorry that you have sacrificed your relevance to the faulty wisdom of this fallen world, when you could stand by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant. Why will you sacrifice that relevance to the faulty wisdom of fallen humanity?
AMO:
A relevant field is one that actually studies the topic in question. A physicist is not an expert in evolution. An astronomer is not an expert in evolution. The fields that study evolution in depth are the ones I suggested: Biology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Genetics, etc.
: Amo Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 20:47:07
I am sorry that you have sacrificed your relevance to the faulty wisdom of this fallen world, when you could stand by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant. Why will you sacrifice that relevance to the faulty wisdom of fallen humanity?
So is that your next tactic?. An attempt to let us know we have fallen to deception due to our belief in the universe as science has observed it? A belief that
differs from yours? Shameful.
: Amo Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 20:47:07
I am sorry that you have sacrificed your relevance to the faulty wisdom of this fallen world, when you could stand by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant. Why will you sacrifice that relevance to the faulty wisdom of fallen humanity?
Your insinuation that Alan is not standing
"by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant", is truly disgusting. But such distasteful, self-righteous expressions against any who disagree with you on this topic is becoming all to commonplace.
Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
PMCID: PMC1208619
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
This new species evolved from a population of D. psuedoobscura.
But 4WD is correct, speciation is not evolution. It is a consequence of evolution. Do you know what evolution is?
: The Barbarian Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 13:08:14
Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
PMCID: PMC1208619
Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
This new species evolved from a population of D. psuedoobscura.
But 4WD is correct, speciation is not evolution. It is a consequence of evolution. Do you know what evolution is?
rofl
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/85/85bf66c7e0d6a46b34efe797112537e2ee4a9e6b39f061e9daafa1fe77ad70d1.jpg)
The cool thing about reality is that it keeps right on, even if you don't believe in it.
: The Barbarian Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 19:35:36
The cool thing about reality is that it keeps right on, even if you don't believe in it.
Then science can't be reality because it keeps on changing.
: AVZ Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 21:55:48Then science can't be reality because it keeps on changing.
Why do you insist on showing your nearly complete lack of knowledge about science with statements like that? You do a lot of posting on something you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
: 4WD Wed Jan 10, 2018 - 04:19:03
Why do you insist on showing your nearly complete lack of knowledge about science with statements like that? You do a lot of posting on something you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
I too am laughing at your attempts
::tippinghat::
: AVZ Wed Jan 10, 2018 - 05:23:50
I too am laughing at your attempts
::tippinghat::
Attempts at what?
: Amo Sun Jan 07, 2018 - 09:08:35
Its a creationist cartoon. Its not about credentials, its just a statement. Kind of like when evolutionists say their theory is indisputable fact.
as if the SOURCE of information determines if the information is true! Stupid.
ALL we observe is changes at species level.
ie: big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, white dogs.
: Open Heart Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 04:05:21
AMO:
A relevant field is one that actually studies the topic in question. A physicist is not an expert in evolution. An astronomer is not an expert in evolution. The fields that study evolution in depth are the ones I suggested: Biology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Genetics, etc.
Anyone can actually study the topic in question and relevance is in the eye of the beholder. You consider the theories developed by fallen human beings called scientists of more relevance than the Holy scriptures of God written by those the scriptures claim were under the direct inspiration of God. Creationists consider testimony of scripture given under the direct inspiration of God as far more relevant than the puny observations of fallen humanity which have, do, and will continue to be proved wrong time and again and need constant updating. During which process the puny fallen humans of the day claim their theories are beyond question and absolute fact, until of course proved otherwise. The real issue here is about who we choose as more relevant, God's word, or mans word. You have chosen the testimony of man in contradiction to the word of God as your experts on truth. Creationists stick with the word of God as the expert testimony regarding truth. That is all.
: Alan Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 07:40:46
So is that your next tactic?. An attempt to let us know we have fallen to deception due to our belief in the universe as science has observed it? A belief that differs from yours? Shameful.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Not a tactic bro, we just have fundamentally different views and ideas about scripture.
: 4WD Tue Jan 09, 2018 - 09:15:30
Your insinuation that Alan is not standing "by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant", is truly disgusting. But such distasteful, self-righteous expressions against any who disagree with you on this topic is becoming all to commonplace.
The point was not a personal attack upon Alan, only a statement concerning his, mine, and everyone else's relevance. Our relevance is not determined by agreement or not with the supposed experts in and of this world. The relevance of each and everyone of us has been infinitely magnified by the faith and actions of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Those who believe God's word over the testimony of the supposed experts in this world are certainly not irrelevant for doing so. You may of course be as disgusted as you wish. Personally I am somewhat disgusted by the idea that those who disagree with evolutionists because they believe the bible, or for other reasons, are irrelevant. Of course in my case, that is just distasteful self righteousness.
By the way, I do not believe my faith approaches anywhere near the faith of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To the contrary, I do and must constantly pray for greater faith in practice, understanding my own deficiencies regarding the same. Jesus was and is our example. Imitating His example is a perfect goal to seek to reach, none but the self righteous though, would ever actually claim to have already reached it.
: Amo Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:22:01The point was not a personal attack upon Alan.........
But it was.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 10:06:20
A classic mess of dishonesties.
Among the lies:
"Darwin doubted common descent"
"Mutation can't produce new information"
"Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
"Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
"T-rex red blood cells have been found."
"There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."
If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.
Evolution is a classic mess of dishonesties.
Among the lies:
common descent
mutations can produce new information unto evolution of new species
carbon 14 can't be used to date certain fossils because they are to old
no unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found
No dinosaur blood cells or soft tissue has been found
there are sufficient transitional forms between human and primates discovered to prove evolution of the same
If anyone would like to defend one or more of these evolutionary lies, lets talk about them.
See, we can do that to.
Barbarian, you need to reconsider your use of the term "theory". A theory is not a fact.
Definition of theory for English Language Learners. : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 10:07:55
It's directly observed to happen. Can't get more sure than that. Just so we know, what do you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is?
Evolution from one species to another has never been observed, that is a fact.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 10:21:35
The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationists to make. One way to see how bad it is, is to compare the numbers. Project Steve is a investigation that counts the number of scientists with a doctorate in biology or a related field who accept evolution, and are named "Steve" or some variant of the name.
Presently, there are (Barbarian checks) um, 1422 Steves on the list.
https://ncse.com/list-of-steves
How many Steves do you have? (Barbarian checks) You have 4.
About 0.2% of the Steves who accept evolution. But one of your Steves is an electrical engineer and one is a PhD in education. So actually about 0.1%
See why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?
The bandwagon argument is a loser for all who employ it. It was put forth on this board in favor of evolution, thus the dialogue concerning it.
: 4WD Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Evolution is not one species turning into another.
So you admit that God created all the main species that exist, and what you call evolution is really just mainly about change and adaption within species, is that correct? Which is why we find continuous evidence of extinction of species rather than constant evolution of new and more highly evolved species, correct? Of course also, even if evolution of species does occur on occasion it most obviously does not happen near often enough to keep up with the observable rates of extinction which have occurred so as to be a plausible explanation of our origins, correct?
: Amo Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:57:56
So you admit that God created all the main species that exist, and what you call evolution is really just mainly about change and adaption within species, is that correct?
no
: 4WD Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 11:24:46
no
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.mathnasium.com/upload/477/images/have-cake-eat-it-too-smaller.jpg)
: 4WD Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 11:24:46
no
So where have all the different species come from?
Barbarian observes:
A classic mess of dishonesties.
Among the lies:
"Darwin doubted common descent"
"Mutation can't produce new information"
"Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
"Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
"T-rex red blood cells have been found."
"There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."
If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.
Evolution is a classic mess of dishonesties.
Well, let's take a look and deal with that before you answer my challenge:
Among the lies:
common descent
That has been verified repeatedly. When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent. Then Darwin explained why it happened so. And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted. And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.
mutations can produce new information unto evolution of new species
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information. Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus. For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%) The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30
Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48. An increase information. The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
(https://www.splunk.com/content/dam/splunk-blogs/images/2015/10/shannon_equation.jpg)
Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.
carbon 14 can't be used to date certain fossils because they are to old
Quite true. C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.
no unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found
So far, none. But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.
No dinosaur blood cells or soft tissue has been found
So far, none. All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.
there are sufficient transitional forms between human and primates discovered to prove evolution of the same
Science doesn't deal in "proof." However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact. Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?
Your turn.
Barbarian, you need to reconsider your use of the term "theory". A theory is not a fact.
A theory explains facts. For example, we observe new species evolving. Darwin's theory of natural selection explains why this happens. A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been tested and verified by evidence.
If you want to discuss science, you must use the definitions that science uses.
No, we do not observe one species turned into another.
Even many creationists now admit speciation is a fact. They just say that it isn't "real evolution."
Here is "Answers in Genesis", conceding that speciation is a fact:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
Of course, they don't admit that Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by random processes.
Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Evolution is not one species turning into another.
Then please give us your definition of the word "evolution".
Scientifically, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Speciation is a consequence of evolution. It's not evolution and more than a planet going around the sun is gravity. It's a consequence of gravity.
: The Barbarian Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:18:05
Barbarian observes:
A classic mess of dishonesties.
Among the lies:
"Darwin doubted common descent"
"Mutation can't produce new information"
"Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
"Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
"T-rex red blood cells have been found."
"There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."
If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.
Well, let's take a look and deal with that before you answer my challenge:
That has been verified repeatedly. When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent. Then Darwin explained why it happened so. And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted. And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information. Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus. For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%) The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30
Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48. An increase information. The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
(https://www.splunk.com/content/dam/splunk-blogs/images/2015/10/shannon_equation.jpg)
Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.
Quite true. C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.
So far, none. But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.
So far, none. All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.
Science doesn't deal in "proof." However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact. Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?
Your turn.
That has been verified repeatedly. When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent. Then Darwin explained why it happened so. And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted. And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.
Negative. Could just as well be proof of commonality of design by a common designer, not common descent. You simply place your faith in the former rather than the latter.
No transitional forms have been found and proved to be such, just many speculated upon by those who wish it to be so. They are looking to back up the faith which they have chosen. Not that it matters, even if God did allow for the ability to evolve form one species to another in His creation, this would not disprove creation. It would only do so for those who choose another faith. To the contrary, even evolution itself is far more likely the result of design than random chance, which even most "Christian" evolutionists propagate. Unfortunately they scrap the biblical account of creation while doing so.
Darwin correctly observed that there would be innumerable transitional forms with slight variations. Such would have left far more transitional forms in the fossil record than the scanty and very uncertain evidence offered thus far. Still, the slight changes he predicted would not be considered unusual to creationists or evidence of change from one species to another.
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information. Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus. For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%) The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30
Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48. An increase information. The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.
https://creation.com/mutations-new-information
In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes 'mutations'. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of 'biological information'. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by 'new' and 'information'. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!
All mutations do not produce an increase of information. Just more word games.
http://www.icr.org/article/5783/
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect. While a few were dangerous, most had very little negative effect. Could such a small negative effect even be detected, let alone culled, by natural selection? And how could a fish transmutate into a monkey by losing "fitness" each generation?
It can't, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."2
The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill. Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information."4
Quite true. C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.
So, why not just carbon date a bunch of dinosaur bones and prove the point of their age?
So far, none. But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTY3v8n9aBE
So far, none. All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.
The above provided information and video already refute your above statement.
Science doesn't deal in "proof." However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact. Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?
Negative, it is the documented speculation of the religious affiliation of evolutionists.
: The Barbarian Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:22:23
A theory explains facts. For example, we observe new species evolving. Darwin's theory of natural selection explains why this happens. A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been tested and verified by evidence.
If you want to discuss science, you must use the definitions that science uses.
We do not observe new species evolving, we observe changes and variations in species, and members of the religious affiliation of evolutionists speculating that new species are evolving. Darwin's theory of natural selection is flawed in that it assumes long ages as necessary to that which could exist as part of design and recent creation. If the theory is ever proved, it will not in any way shape or form disprove creation.
: The Barbarian Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:30:21
Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Scientifically, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Speciation is a consequence of evolution. It's not evolution and more than a planet going around the sun is gravity. It's a consequence of gravity.
More word games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqQmkoJXMY
Another interesting video regarding iron preservation of dinosaur soft tissues.
Barbarian observes:
That has been verified repeatedly. When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent. Then Darwin explained why it happened so. And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted. And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.
. Could just as well be proof of commonality of design by a common designer, not common descent.
Nope. That would mean that sharks and whales would have similar DNA. Creationism can't explain that, but evolutionary theory does. You simply place your faith in the former rather than the latter.
No transitional forms have been found and proved to be such
Let's test your faith in your new doctrine. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional form.
Not that it matters, even if God did allow for the ability to evolve form one species to another in His creation, this would not disprove creation.
Right. It would just falsify creationism. Which it does.
To the contrary, even evolution itself is far more likely the result of design than random chance, which even most "Christian" evolutionists propagate.
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. And of course evolution is God's creation.
The "life ex nihilo faith of YE creationists is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. Creationists ignore that, and unfortunately they scrap the biblical account of creation while doing so.
Darwin correctly observed that there would be innumerable transitional forms with slight variations.
Which is what we see whenever the fossil record is good. As you probably remember, YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions a large number of them in his paper Toward a
Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms. Would you like me to show you again?
Barbarian observes:
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information. Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus. For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%) The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30
Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48. An increase information. The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.
https://creation.com/mutations-new-information
Sorry, they were unable to even come up with an estimate. They just cited Shannon's name, but fail to understand how information is actually calculated. Creationists often talk about "information", but as in this case, they really don't know what it is, or even how it's determined.
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect.
You've been misled on that. There are many, many favorable mutations, while most of them have no discernable positive or negative effect. You have several dozen yourself that were not present in either of your parents.
It can't, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it.
As you see by the example above, Spetner doesn't understand what "information" means. Population geneticists calculate information using Shannon's equation.
A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
Gaining a new allele is not in any sense losing something. It's essential to the health and survival of the population. Once a population drops below a certain level of variability, it usually goes extinct.
The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill.
That's not what Kimura found. He found that neutral mutations tend to enhance survival.
The theory was introduced by the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura in 1968, and independently by two American biologists Jack Lester King and Thomas Hughes Jukes in 1969, and described in detail by Kimura in his 1983 monograph The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin. The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive "neutralist-selectionist" controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, much evidence has been found for selection at molecular level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution
Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information."
Sanford thinks "information" means "good." That's not what it means. And he seems to have purposely misrepresented Kimura:
The "unrealistic results" that Kimura notes of plugging beneficial mutations into his model are that "the rate of evolution can become enormously high in a very large population" (i.e. beneficial mutations would become fixed at high rates), which is not an effect that is normally observed in reality. So the reason Kimura omitted beneficial mutations is not that they have too little effect (as Sanford implies), but that in his model they would have too much effect. This is just an artifact of his model (which, like all models, is a simplification of the real situation), not a statement about whether beneficial mutations have an effect in the real world.
Kimura [27] acknowledges that with his model, slightly deleterious mutations can build up, but (using parameter values he considers realistic), he does not see this as a threat to most species:
Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual's survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.
In other words, within his theoretical framework, the mutational load can be readily compensated by the occasional beneficial mutation.
All this is clearly spelled out by Kimura in The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, which Sanford cites in his Genetic Entropy. Thus, Sanford misled his readers on Kimura's treatment of beneficial mutations, and few readers would dig into Kimura's writings to discover what he really thought.
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
Barbarian, regarding why C-14 isn't used by paleontologists:
Quite true. C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.
So, why not just carbon date a bunch of dinosaur bones and prove the point of their age?
So, why not just use a candy thermometer to measure the temperature of a blast furnace? If you thought about it for a bit, I bet you could figure out why not.
Barbarian, regarding why cells and tissue have not been found in fossils
So far, none. But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Your site merely makes the claim, but does not support it. Notice, BTW, that when they did try to carbon date dinosaur bones, they just got numbers close to the maximum possible with that method. Just as a candy thermometer would give you a reading of perhaps 250 degrees for the melted steel in a blast furnace.
Barbarian observes:
So far, none. All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.
The above provided information and video already refute your above statement.
Nope. Just unsupported claims. No intact cells, much intact tissue has ever been found. In biology, "tissue" means "group of cells organized for a function"; the use of "tissue" to mean "thin bit of material" is the source of the confusion. However there is something pretty cool about finding some collagen.
Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
One more prediction of evolutionary theory confirmed.
Quote
Barbarian offers:
Science doesn't deal in "proof." However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact. Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?
Negative, it is the documented speculation of the religious affiliation of evolutionists.
Nope. For example, most apes have notably curved digits, useful for climbing. Humans have strait digits. The transitional forms between arboreal apes and humans have slightly curved digits.
Apes usually have long, narrow hips. Humans have wide, short hips to aid in efficient walking. Transitional forms have hips somewhere between.
Apes have large faces and relatively small braincases. Humans have large brain cases and small faces. Transitional forms have brains and faces intermediate between humans and other apes.
Would you like to see some details? I'll include some in a later post.
We do not observe new species evolving
You've already been given some examples of directly observed speciations. Would you like me to show you again?
So, what do Barbarian and others who stand with him say in all of these?
That the Genesis creation must be interpreted by the use of science? That the Genesis creation is creation of God by evolution, the process according to the scientific theory of evolution? And that whoever denies this is under deception and is believing a lie, and so does not have the truth about the matter of the creation of God? That it is a lie,
that Genesis creation was not by evolution but was a literal 6 day creation event?
Where is this all going to?
Or have they just been all along showing that science is inevitably necessary in knowing the truth about the creation of God, how by science, they come to know the truth, if at all by science can know the truth about the creation of God
Pardon me, but as this thread is going, rather than seeing clearly the point of it, it brings me to even further down to darkness than light.
Michael, please interpret the following, appealing only to Scripture:
Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Do not infuse any scientific knowledge of the solar system that can not be firmly established by Scriptural reference.
: 4WD Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:15:09
Michael, please interpret the following, appealing only to Scripture:
Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Do not infuse any scientific knowledge of the solar system that can not be firmly established by Scriptural reference.
The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down. And I ought to take it that way too.
How about you?
: Michael2012 Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:21:54The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down. And I ought to take it that way too.
How about you?
I ought to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth as the writer expresses. To try to insist that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth would be foolish indeed and make a mockery of God's word.
: 4WD Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:32:55
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 06:21:54
The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down. And I ought to take it that way too.
How about you?
I ought to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth as the writer expresses. To try to insist that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth would be foolish indeed and make a mockery of God's word.
And that is how one reads that scriptures when he infuse scientific knowledge in the reading. And here you say that what the writer expresses is that the sun does not revolve around the earth, when he does not. He simply says that the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. There is no revolution there even. Only in your mind. What the writer said is plainly understood by the Christian regarding the sun, for every man on earth sees it and experience it exactly as was written by the writer.
And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth? The said scriptures nor the Bible as a whole, is not out to teach us about that.
: Michael2012 Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 07:32:11
And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth?
Nearly the whole of the Judaeo-Christian world prior to the time of Copernicus and Galileo. And they used the Bible to prove it.
So, what do Barbarian and others who stand with him say in all of these?
That the Genesis creation must be interpreted by the use of science?
It doesn't matter whether you accept Genesis as it has traditionally been understood, or accept the new doctrine of YE creationism. It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of your new belief.
Where is this all going to?
That some interpretations of Genesis do not fit the observed facts. That is a problem only if it adds a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to Him. If you accept that there is disagreement among Christians on the details of creation, you haven't compromised your salvation at all.
Let God be God and don't worry about things that don't matter to your faith.
: 4WD Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 07:47:43
Nearly the whole of the Judaeo-Christian world prior to the time of Copernicus and Galileo. And they used the Bible to prove it.
You of course have many quotes to prove this issue was hotly debated many times, and Jews and Christians always insisted that the sun revolves around the earth because of the scripture you shared, correct. Most now that the Roman Catholic church argued against and condemned this belief, I'd like to see some of the others you are speaking of if you don't mind. By the way, Copernicus and Galileo were Christians. Obviously then, not all Christians argued that the sun revolved around the earth. To the contrary, Christian scientists arrived at this truth, if indeed they were the first to arrive at this conclusion. According to scripture, the context of which the scripture you are referring to, that is unlikely.
Ecc 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.Evolutionists, including "Christian" evolutionists envision themselves as the high end of the process they have placed their faith in, believing today that they are intellectually superior to humanity of the past. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary which they choose to ignore. There was an entire world of no doubt advanced civilization wiped out by the flood which the scriptures record, which of course self aggrandizing evolutionists reject as truth. Beings closer the the perfection of God's original creation of greater physical and mental ability and stature than we now poses who lived much longer than we do. All of this is a fairy tail to those who reject scripture in favor of their superior intellect which cannot allow for such to be true. They profess Christ yet do not believe His testimony or large portions of the scriptures which themselves are the testimony of Jesus Christ. With so much of scripture being untrue, how do you know Jesus Christ is for real. If Jesus confirmed that which you reject as truth, then why do you trust Him?
Do you really think God had to wait for evolutionists to finally explain the truth of our origins to us?
: The Barbarian Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 08:31:25
It doesn't matter whether you accept Genesis as it has traditionally been understood, or accept the new doctrine of YE creationism. It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of your new belief.
That some interpretations of Genesis do not fit the observed facts. That is a problem only if it adds a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to Him. If you accept that there is disagreement among Christians on the details of creation, you haven't compromised your salvation at all.
Let God be God and don't worry about things that don't matter to your faith.
Yes God is God, and you are not. You cannot and will not determine what matters concerning true faith. Barbarian saying it doesn't matter what one thinks about creation in relation to salvation absolutely does not make it so. All who submit to this testimony raise themselves above the word of God, which says no such thing.
Her 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds;Her 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.Ps 33:6
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth............................
3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.......................................
6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters......................................................
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................................................
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............
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...........................................
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............................................................
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...............................
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........................
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Lk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.Mk 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,
For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It does matter who or what you believe about creation. Choosing to believe that which contradicts the scriptures is choosing faith in another.
: Michael2012And that is how one reads that scriptures when he infuse scientific knowledge in the reading. And here you say that what the writer expresses is that the sun does not revolve around the earth, when he does not. He simply says that the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. There is no revolution there even. Only in your mind. What the writer said is plainly understood by the Christian regarding the sun, for every man on earth sees it and experience it exactly as was written by the writer.
And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth? The said scriptures nor the Bible as a whole, is not out to teach us about that.
Just saying that the sun rises and also goes down is technically wrong, since it doesn't do that at all. We continue to say that the sun rises and sets due to language, culture, and convenience.
: Alan Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 17:45:35
Just saying that the sun rises and also goes down is technically wrong, since it doesn't do that at all. We continue to say that the sun rises and sets due to language, culture, and convenience.
Technically wrong to scientists, but not to simple and ordinary people on earth who sees it and experience it exactly as was written in scriptures by the writer. It was written as it was, by divine inspiration.
You don't have to be a scientist to know that the sun isn't going up and down to create day and night, I'm not a scientist and that is pretty obvious to me as well as most people I would assume.
Yes God is God, and you are not. You cannot and will not determine what matters concerning true faith.
God says what matters, and He does not say that the way He created life is one of the things that matters.
Barbarian saying it doesn't matter what one thinks about creation in relation to salvation absolutely does not make it so.
God's word makes it so. Don't add things to His word that aren't there. To demand that salvation depends on your new doctrine, is to raise yourself about His word.
Do you really think God had to wait for evolutionists to finally explain the truth of our origins to us?
Do you really think God had to wait for Newton to finally explain the truth of gravity to us?
Maybe He left some things for us to find out for ourselves. Since neither of these has anything to do with salvation, it's understandable why He didn't tell us about them.
: Alan Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 21:37:00
You don't have to be a scientist to know that the sun isn't going up and down to create day and night, I'm not a scientist and that is pretty obvious to me as well as most people I would assume.
I wouldn't know if I were not taught in school. The ancients did not know that either. What they and I know is what I see and experience the sun to be. I see it rises and go down.
: The Barbarian Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 22:46:47
Since neither of these has anything to do with salvation, it's understandable why He didn't tell us about them.
Removed comment; pointless.
: Amo Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 10:45:17It does matter who or what you believe about creation. Choosing to believe that which contradicts the scriptures is choosing faith in another.
But that is not at all what this is about. This is about what a few, including you Amo, think contradicts the Scriptures. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not about what the Scriptures say, it is about what you, Amo, think it means by what it says. And although perhaps being interesting, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith in another". You, whether you believe it or not, are not the author, the measure or the decider for "another faith". I know that just rips you apart, but so be it.
: Michael2012I wouldn't know if I were not taught in school. The ancients did not know that either. What they and I know is what I see and experience the sun to be. I see it rises and go down.
That's reasonable, and so it would also make the Genesis accounts reasonably narrated without the certainty of scientific explanation that we can see clearly today, that in itself is the entire emphasis of this topic.
: 4WD Mon Jan 15, 2018 - 05:29:52
But that is not at all what this is about. This is about what a few, including you Amo, think contradicts the Scriptures. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not about what the Scriptures say, it is about what you, Amo, think it means by what it says. And although perhaps being interesting, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith in another". You, whether you believe it or not, are not the author, the measure or the decider for "another faith". I know that just rips you apart, but so be it.
Yea, I'm torn all to pieces. It's such a confusing and difficult matter isn't it?
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,......................................................................
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
No way to clearly understand such an extremely complex statement, just mind boggling stuff you know. Did God really come down and say those words to Israel, or is that just a fairly tale as well? Of course we simply don't know, I mean how could we know just because the bible simply states it that way, right?
This much is true, I choose to believe what scripture simply states about creation as it is by faith. I am not, and I would not force it upon all in our public schools as fact that they must acknowledge as the truth. Yes, I believe and defend the scriptures as truth, but I do not force my faith upon others as evolutionists have, do, and no doubt will continue to do.
I wouldn't know if I were not taught in school. The ancients did not know that either. What they and I know is what I see and experience the sun to be. I see it rises and go down.
Actually, some did.
Aristarchus of Samos (/ˌærəˈstɑːrkəs/; Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ Σάμιος, Aristarkhos ho Samios; c. 310 – c. 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but Aristarchus identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and he put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] Like Anaxagoras before him, he suspected that the stars were just other bodies like the Sun, albeit further away from Earth. He was also the first one to deduce the rotation of earth on its axis. His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the incorrect geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Nicolaus Copernicus attributed the heliocentric theory to Aristarchus.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
: The Barbarian Wed Jan 17, 2018 - 12:46:51
I wouldn't know if I were not taught in school. The ancients did not know that either. What they and I know is what I see and experience the sun to be. I see it rises and go down.
Actually, some did.
Aristarchus of Samos (/ˌærəˈstɑːrkəs/; Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ Σάμιος, Aristarkhos ho Samios; c. 310 – c. 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but Aristarchus identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and he put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] Like Anaxagoras before him, he suspected that the stars were just other bodies like the Sun, albeit further away from Earth. He was also the first one to deduce the rotation of earth on its axis. His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the incorrect geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Nicolaus Copernicus attributed the heliocentric theory to Aristarchus.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
Would you say the writer of Ecclesiastes knew?
With regards Aristarchus of Samos, what does he have at the time, a thought, a suspicion, a hypothesis, a theory, a fact, or truth?
The article speaks of Aristarchus of Samos as a Greek astronomer and mathematician. He most probably was not a Jew, but was a Greek Gentile. And so, most probability still, he was a pagan or an atheist, or a polytheist. But one thing may be certain about him, he was one who has the greater worldly wisdom at his time.
Nonetheless, at the time of the apostles, from about 230-300+ years after Aristarchus, here's what Scriptures says:
Romans 1:14 I am obligated both to
Greeks and non-Greeks, both to
the wise and the foolish.
1 Corinthians 1:20-22
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not
God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God
the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and
Greeks look for wisdom,
Blessed are we, that we aren't those who demand signs and aren't those who look for wisdom. but are those who have faith in God, even in His word in scriptures.
: The Barbarian Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 22:46:47
Do you really think God had to wait for Newton to finally explain the truth of gravity to us?
Maybe He left some things for us to find out for ourselves. Since neither of these has anything to do with salvation, it's understandable why He didn't tell us about them.
Of course He left things for us to figure out ourselves, we have to if it is as you believe, that God's word is not dependable. If we cannot believe the testimony of scripture regarding that which it exactly addresses, then it is unreliable and we are dependent upon ourselves to know and understand these things, or some self acclaimed expert like well, an evolutionist. Thus the evolutionist is to be regarded as above the scriptures regarding truths they deem scripture is insufficient to address. Therefore also is the evolutionist exalted above the word of God in their own eyes, and the eyes of all who submit to their self proclaimed superiority.
The presumption of evolutionists may believe that we needed Newton to explain gravity to us. The creationist understands that most if not all of our present "discoveries" or scientific "enlightenment" are nothing new at all. They are just the slow accumulation of knowledge humanity already had prior to their destruction by the flood. Lost knowledge slowly being regained. Somewhat different to that of the ancients in that the world itself is far different, and the humans before the flood were had superior size, strength, life span, and intellect. Our knowledge and advancements are according to the inferior world we inherited, and the inferior size, strength, life span, and intellect due to de-evolution as well. The knowledge surmised and conclusions drawn concerning our past are vastly different between those who trust the scriptures and those who trust their own understanding. These two will never agree. They are motivated and lead by two opposing powers.
: Amo Wed Jan 17, 2018 - 12:32:39
Yea, I'm torn all to pieces. It's such a confusing and difficult matter isn't it?
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,......................................................................
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
No way to clearly understand such an extremely complex statement, just mind boggling stuff you know. Did God really come down and say those words to Israel, or is that just a fairly tale as well? Of course we simply don't know, I mean how could we know just because the bible simply states it that way, right?
This much is true, I choose to believe what scripture simply states about creation as it is by faith. I am not, and I would not force it upon all in our public schools as fact that they must acknowledge as the truth. Yes, I believe and defend the scriptures as truth, but I do not force my faith upon others as evolutionists have, do, and no doubt will continue to do.
Here are just a few verses speaking of the
"Ends of the Earth" Please Amo, without giving us a bunch of mumbo jumbo of figurative descriptions, give us the literal meaning of the
"Ends of the Earth" giving particular attention to the meaning of the word "ends".
Isa 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
Isa 41:5 The coastlands have seen and are afraid; the ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come.
Isa 41:9 You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, 'You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.
Isa 43:6 "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Isa 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 52:10 The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no I can give you some more if you like.
: 4WD Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 07:24:42
Here are just a few verses speaking of the "Ends of the Earth" Please Amo, without giving us a bunch of mumbo jumbo of figurative descriptions, give us the literal meaning of the "Ends of the Earth" giving particular attention to the meaning of the word "ends".
Isa 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
Isa 41:5 The coastlands have seen and are afraid; the ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come.
Isa 41:9 You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, 'You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.
Isa 43:6 "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Isa 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 52:10 The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no
I can give you some more if you like.
But all of those verses are using the term "ends of the earth" figuratively. ::crackup::
: Alan Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 09:14:45
But all of those verses are using the term "ends of the earth" figuratively. ::crackup::
My point precisely.
Would you say the writer of Ecclesiastes knew?
Maybe. Maybe not. If he made a mistake in that regard, did it in any way change the message that He was conveying from God?
With regards Aristarchus of Samos, what does he have at the time, a thought, a suspicion, a hypothesis, a theory, a fact, or truth?
Well, he had a thought. That became an hypothesis when he realized that he could test it with observations. When he tested it and his hypothesis was verified by the facts he gathered, it then qualified as a theory. As you might know, a theory is a well-tested and confirmed idea that explains a phenomenon. Hence, the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact and Heliocentrism is the theory that explains it.
The article speaks of Aristarchus of Samos as a Greek astronomer and mathematician. He most probably was not a Jew, but was a Greek Gentile. And so, most probability still, he was a pagan or an atheist, or a polytheist. But one thing may be certain about him, he was one who has the greater worldly wisdom at his time.
Sure. And while it's important to know about nature, so as to live in this world, the Author of Ecclesiastes was telling us about God and His ways.
Aliens planted the seed of life on this planet just like we are going to do sometime in the future. That is if we do not blow ourselves up first.
& that seed was DNA
::tippinghat::
: tooldtocare Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 17:24:36
Aliens planted the seed of life on this planet just like we are going to do sometime in the future. That is if we do not blow ourselves up first.
& that seed was DNA
::tippinghat::
You got some great weed.
: tooldtocare Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 17:24:36
Aliens planted the seed of life on this planet just like we are going to do sometime in the future. That is if we do not blow ourselves up first.
& that seed was DNA
::tippinghat::
And who created the Aliens? Other Aliens?
And who created the Aliens? Other Aliens?
Very clever of you. But it's aliens all the way down.
: tooldtocare Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 17:24:36
Aliens planted the seed of life on this planet just like we are going to do sometime in the future. That is if we do not blow ourselves up first.
& that seed was DNA
::tippinghat::
::headscratch::
Nope, the aliens wrote the simulation we find ourselves in though, just like we are going to do sometime in the future. So technically we cannot really blow ourselves up.
: TCYou got some great weed.
We got the best weed in Canada.
rofl
: 4WD Thu Jan 18, 2018 - 07:24:42
Here are just a few verses speaking of the "Ends of the Earth" Please Amo, without giving us a bunch of mumbo jumbo of figurative descriptions, give us the literal meaning of the "Ends of the Earth" giving particular attention to the meaning of the word "ends".
Isa 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
Isa 41:5 The coastlands have seen and are afraid; the ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come.
Isa 41:9 You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, 'You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.
Isa 43:6 "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Isa 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 52:10 The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no
I can give you some more if you like.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.First, what does the term ends of the earth whether figurative or literal have to do with the fourth commandment, which does not use the term at all? Second, the commandment is to specific to b taken in the figurative sense. The Lord made heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in or on them, in six days. Third, the ten commandments are absolutes from God not figurative or symbolic representations for speculation, though certainly embodying principles to be expounded upon. According to scripture they are a straight testimony from the mouth of God confirming that the Genesis creation account is a literal description and not figurative or symbolic in nature. All of this you deny by the faith you have chosen which blatantly contradicts this scriptural testimony. On top of that, your belief maligns the character of God by establishing that God commanded and enforced a law built and based upon an event that did not even happen. He punished individuals and an entire nation several times over for not believing or acknowledging this command which was and is to be observed by faith concerning an event which never really even happened. This is your testimony about the God of the bible according to your misplaced faith.
Unless of course the events recorded in Exodus are not true, and all the events connected with the Sabbath issue are not true either. So then, according to your misplaced faith, the creation account of scripture is not true and therefore also all scriptural testimony confirming it. That is quite a bit of scripture. Then of course the flood account of scripture is not true and therefore also all events recorded connected with it and scriptural testimony confirming it. That again, is quite a bit of scripture. Now apparently, the account of God descending upon the mountain and speaking the ten commandments to Israel is in serious question as well, since one of those commands backs up the creation account and is said to be spoken by the mouth of God Himself, who cannot lie. Therefore also all other events concerning the Sabbath command are also in serious question and all scripture which seems to confirm it. That again is a whole lot of scripture. You have chosen a faith which under increasingly close examination, increasingly attacks and destroys faith in the testimony of scripture. Now even the longest of God's ten commandments identifying exactly who He is, and His right to authority over all the earth and creation, is basically trashed by the faith which you have chosen.
So what is your new theory along these lines 4WD? Is it that the creation account was only a limited event to a local area, and then evolution proceeded from that point? No, I guess that would be silly. So what are you trying to say? What are your implications concerning the fact that the term ends of the earth doesn't always mean the entire earth when used, in relation to the fourth commandment of God. Or is it as always, you simply cast doubt upon taking scripture for just what it says according to the faith you have chosen, without explaining or offering the alternate meaning of the same because you yourself do not even have one? Please do correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, then you simply doubt God's word because of your faith in fallen humanities speculation over and above the same. You have no alternate explanation of the things you say are not true, you just choose to believe they are not true because you have chosen to believe that fallen humanities wisdom and insight is greater than that of the prophets of God. Again, please do correct if I am wrong and give your alternate version of all theses things you say are not literal. What do they represent then according to the testimony provided in scripture? Or was God completely incapable of revealing the truth of your faith in any way shape or form through the testimony He provided us, and had to wait for you and yours to do it for Him? You have evolved above God's abilities and can now tell us the truth, is that it? Please do expound and explain.
Perhaps I have missed the point you were trying to make all together, if so, please do expound. I take the term ends of the earth to mean all the earth. I see no problem with that application in the verses you quoted. So, what are you implying about the term, or what exactly is your point if I have missed it? Also, what does that point have to do with the fourth commandment, which does not use the term?
More dinosaur and young earth science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqQmkoJXMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYKR3r5_PrU
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
AMO, How many hours are thene in that seveth day that God rested?
: 4WD Fri Jan 19, 2018 - 09:25:56
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
AMO, How many hours are thene in that seveth day that God rested?
Can't be exactly certain. A biblical day is from evening unto evening. Today that is about 24 hours. As you know though, I believe there have been major changes in this world since the flood. The world was very different then which possibly included a different rate of the earths rotation. We simply do not know for sure, since we have not and cannot observe what was.
: 4WD Fri Jan 19, 2018 - 09:25:56
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
AMO, How many hours are thene in that seveth day that God rested?
24 hours.
Because the next day it was Sunday again.
Can't be exactly certain. A biblical day is from evening unto evening. Today that is about 24 hours. As you know though, I believe there have been major changes in this world since the flood. The world was very different then which possibly included a different rate of the earths rotation. We simply do not know for sure, since we have not and cannot observe what was.
Actually, it's possible to know how long days were in the ancient past:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL00234/pdf
: Amo Fri Jan 19, 2018 - 09:39:47Can't be exactly certain. A biblical day is from evening unto evening. Today that is about 24 hours. As you know though, I believe there have been major changes in this world since the flood. The world was very different then which possibly included a different rate of the earths rotation. We simply do not know for sure, since we have not and cannot observe what was.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. There are many biblical scholars who contend that we are still in God's seventh day of rest. There was, is and will be no more creation until that time when Christ returns and God creates the New Heavens and New Earth. God continues to work, to make and do things, but He does not now create [ex nihilo] From all of His creating He is resting according to the verses above. I tend to agree with that observation. Which means that God's seventh day of rest is according to biblical counting about six thousand years and counting.
: The Barbarian Fri Jan 19, 2018 - 21:45:20
Actually, it's possible to know how long days were in the ancient past:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL00234/pdf
Says the man who knows evolution is an established fact of our origin. One of the differences between "Christian" evolutionists and creationists is of course in regards to where they place their faith. Creationists tend to place more faith in the word of God, evolutionists in the word of "scientists". I'm not overly concerned with exactly how long a day was prior to the flood, though I do accept that detailed by scripture, that a day is from evening to evening. Evolutionists of course who do not believe there ever was a global flood and put a great deal of faith in "scientists" who generally do not believe such either, are likely to believe whatever they are told by the same. Still, even many scientists know and acknowledge that the world of long ago was different than this present one.
: 4WD Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 05:18:23
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
There are many biblical scholars who contend that we are still in God's seventh day of rest. There was, is and will be no more creation until that time when Christ returns and God creates the New Heavens and New Earth. God continues to work, to make and do things, but He does not now create [ex nihilo] From all of His creating He is resting according to the verses above. I tend to agree with that observation. Which means that God's seventh day of rest is according to biblical counting about six thousand years and counting.
Yes they do. Many of them believe in evolution as well. Many of them have been wrong in the past, and many of them argued with the truths presented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He was here on earth as one of us as well.
: Amo Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 06:58:57
Yes they do. Many of them believe in evolution as well. Many of them have been wrong in the past, and many of them argued with the truths presented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He was here on earth as one of us as well.
So how many days did God rest from all His work of creation?
: Amo Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 06:54:20
Says the man who knows evolution is an established fact of our origin. One of the differences between "Christian" evolutionists and creationists is of course in regards to where they place their faith. Creationists tend to place more faith in the word of God, evolutionists in the word of "scientists". I'm not overly concerned with exactly how long a day was prior to the flood, though I do accept that detailed by scripture, that a day is from evening to evening. Evolutionists of course who do not believe there ever was a global flood and put a great deal of faith in "scientists" who generally do not believe such either, are likely to believe whatever they are told by the same. Still, even many scientists know and acknowledge that the world of long ago was different than this present one.
So you didn't read the article and probably wouldn't understand if you had.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 29 He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. 30 Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: 31 But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
It is no surprise that as knowledge has increased in this world once again, which the bible predicted (Dan 12:4), the deceptive nature and character of humanities idols would increase as well. The cunning craftsman or "scientists" of today have erected the ideological idol of the theory of evolution rather than an actual statue of a false deity. While the idol worshippers of old crafted literal idols in representation of the false religions and god's they brought forth through their own imaginations in contradiction and rebellion against the word of God, many idol worshippers of today bow down to cunningly crafted theories devised through the speculative observations of their own imaginations in contradiction and rebellion against the word of God. These idol theories are better suited unto deception than the idols of old, and the "scientists" who crafted them can and do easily modify and adapt their theory as knowledge continues to increase, or evidence suggests is necessary. The result is identical to that of the idols of old though, a greater faith in the speculations and imaginings of fallen humanity, than that of the word of God. Some of these idol worshippers are atheists maintaining their own religion as scientific fact and denying the God of the bible. Others have taken the idol of evolution into their respective religions, as many a "Christian" evolutionist has as well amalgamating both religions into one.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
In the idols of old humanity bowed down and worshiped the creature above God, changing the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man. So to do evolutionists change the image of the creator God, into the image of the god of evolution devised in the darkness of their own imaginations. Exalting the speculations of humanity above the word of God. Declaring that life and humanity evolved by and into "birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things", rather than the special creation of God described in His word. Preaching that the God of creation and the god of evolution are one and the same. For "Christian" professing evolutionists, the word of God must conform to the dictates of the religion of evolution to maintain validity. Thus spawning another apostate form of religion built upon and or amalgamated with those portions of scripture acceptable to the perpetrators. Israel was guilty of doing this with the pagan religions during the old covenant. Christianity did the same early on during this new covenant and gave us the Roman Catholic church. Now the Roman Catholic church and individual members of all denominations practice the same with the religion of evolution. All of these amalgamations require the abandonment of certain and sometimes large portions of the Holy scriptures as truth. Thus do we increasingly see the results of the same described in the book of Romans quoted above increasingly permeating and polluting society. All with non stop increasing pressure for bible believing Christians to acknowledge the same as normal and acceptable behavior.
Prov 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
The law of God, the ten commandments are holy, just, good, and thereby also of course true.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
: 4WD Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 07:31:29
So how many days did God rest from all His work of creation?
The seventh day, as scripture plainly states. This is only unclear to those who need it to be so. Thus also God commanded the Sabbath to be observed one day a week on the seventh day.
: 4WD Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 07:34:51
So you didn't read the article and probably wouldn't understand if you had.
No I didn't. As I already stated, I am not very concerned exactly how long a day was when the world was first created compared to now, or whether there is any difference. A day is from evening to evening. I do know that all observations and or speculations relating to unobservable ages of the past, must include assumptions regarding particulars of how things were, since we simply cannot know all the details at present. To the contrary, that is what we are trying to figure out, and making speculations about. Most of those speculations, hypotheses, and or theories will remain just that. Apart from this, most will place their faith in either or. Biblical creationists place their faith in the word of God as it simply states, unless otherwise indicated by scripture itself, not speculations of humanity.
Your article refers to the precambrian period of supposed countless millions of years ago. I don't even believe in such a period promulgated by speculations of fallen humanity. My faith is in the word of God, not the speculations of fallen humanity. Without giving the article much attention, I presume it presumes that the world has gone along relatively unchanged for millions of years as well, as most evolutionists do. Again, scripture contradicts this false theory and even predicts those who would assume it.
2 Pet 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Why would I as one who places faith in scripture above the speculations of fallen humanity, remove that faith and place it upon the scoffers scripture itself predicted would come? I do not presume or believe that all things remain the same since creation, and therefore can provide a stable or consistent graph as it were, to which one can refer or calculate dependable scientific observations that would be reliable believing such to be so. All such speculations would be faulty according to my faith in God's word above fallen human speculations derived in contradiction to the plain testimony of the same.
People, these loooooooooooooooooooong posts are drowning out the discussion.
Please cut them up if you really want folks to read them.
,
.,
.,
,
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,.
,.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,.
,
.,
.,
.
,
Or Paraphrase the content
.
::tippinghat::
: tooldtocare Sat Jan 20, 2018 - 10:20:52
People, these loooooooooooooooooooong posts are drowning out the discussion.
Please cut them up if you really want folks to read them.
,
.,
.,
,
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,.
,.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
.
,.
,
.,
.,
.
,
Or Paraphrase the content
.
::tippinghat::
This is a message board, not face book, twitter, or phone texting. Those of us from the older side are a little more used to actual and even in depth conversations and debate. Were not of the modern one liner world, which quite frankly lacks depth and conviction.
Yes I do ::tippinghat::
Barbarian observes:
Actually, it's possible to know how long days were in the ancient past:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL00234/pdf
Says the man who knows evolution is an established fact of our origin.
No. Evolution is not about the origin of life. It describes how populations of living things change over time. However, tidal rhthmites tell us how long the days were at the time the rythmites were laid down. And hundreds of millions of years ago, days were shorter. And we know why. The Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's oceans are slowing the Earth's rotation by a tiny, but measurable amount. Since the amount of energy transferred to the Moon (which makes it move farther away because of the greater kinetic energy) depends on the amount of coastline, the rate of change has varied as continents split apart and move together.
One of the differences between "Christian" evolutionists and creationists is of course in regards to where they place their faith.
YE creationists, maybe. They put their faith in man's modern re-interpretation of scripture, while OE creationists and theistic evolutionists tend to accept the Bible as it is.
No one with any sense puts "faith" in science. It depends entirely on evidence. Faith is the way you must accept God.
Evolutionists of course who do not believe there ever was a global flood
Since the Bible doesn't say there was, it's not really a problem for anyone who accepts the Bible as it is.
Believe me,
man did not evolve from monkeys.
If we had, there wouldn't be any more monkeys, there would only us, the evolved version.
: tooldtocare Wed Jan 24, 2018 - 20:17:14
Believe me,
man did not evolve from monkeys.
If we had, there wouldn't be any more monkeys, there would only us, the evolved version.
Believe you?? Why? You obviously know nothing whatsoever about evolution.
Barbarian.
What absolute proof can you bring into this conversation that evolution occurred as you believe?
More precise. Do you personally believe that man has evolved into something he originally was not?
: tooldtocare Wed Jan 24, 2018 - 20:17:14
man did not evolve from monkeys.
If we had, there wouldn't be any more monkeys, there would only us, the evolved version.
This is NOT true, that is not how evolution works.
What absolute proof can you bring into this conversation that evolution occurred as you believe?
It's directly observed to happen. Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency in populations over time. What you're thinking of are the consequences of evolution, not evolution itself. Common descent, for example, is a consequence of evolution.
More precise. Do you personally believe that man has evolved into something he originally was not?
Have we evolved over time? Sure. And it's easy to show. Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus between the two of them. (humans have 2 copies of each chromosome) But most human gene loci now have dozens of different alleles, in different people. All the rest of those alleles evolved.
Humans, after our species evolved, diverged into three subspecies, anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Densovans. Africans are entirely anatomically modern, while Europeans are mostly anatomically modern, with a few genes from Neandertals, and Asians are mostly anatomically modern, with a few genes from Neandertals and from Denesovans. We've matched up the genes from Neandertals and Denesovans, and they are not different species, just different subspecies.
We are not quite like early modern humans, such as Cro-magnons, but we're pretty close. So we've come a long way evolutionarily even in the past 100,000 years. The fact that there are all sorts of transitional forms of hominin from forest apes to modern humans is very good evidence (as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits) for our evolution from other primates.
Even more convincing, we don't see any transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No transitions between monkeys and humans, for example, or between gibbons and humans or between baboons and humans.
It's as certain as gravity. Actually more so. We know how evolution works, but we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.
This is NOT true, that is not how evolution works.
It is true that if a new species appears, it is not necessary that the old species go extinct. However, it is quite true that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans. Apes and monkeys had diverged for a very long time before humans and forest apes diverged.
Barbarian cites tidal rhythmites:
Actually, it's possible to know how long days were in the ancient past:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL00234/pdf
Says the man who knows evolution is an established fact of our origin.
No, you've mistaken me for someone else, I suppose. Our origin was when God gave Adam and Eve living souls.
Your body dies and returns to the earth from which it came. You, the soul, will live on, and will be given a new, imperishable body.
One of the differences between Christians who accept the way God created us, and YE creationists is of course in regards to where they place their faith. YE Creationists tend to place more faith in their modern revision of Genesis and theistic evolutionists accept the word of God as it is. Fortunately, it doesn't matter to one's salvation, unless they make an idol of their doctrines, and insist that one must believe the doctrines to be saved.
Most Christians, of course, do not believe there ever was a global flood, since the Bible does not say it was global. But again, it doesn't matter to one's salvation unless one makes an idol of one's personal belief and insist that salvation depends on it.
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html
The exceptionally large size of the terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is not a subtle oddity to be dismissed but rather it is a glaring paradox that must be investigated. The essence of science - our belief that we exist in a rational reality - is at stake here.
Something must have been different about the world during the Mesozoic era so as to allow terrestrial animals to grow so much larger. This line of reasoning should make us wonder if there is other evidence indicating that during the Mesozoic era that the world was a dramatically different place. While we do not want to get too far ahead of ourselves the author will address the immediate curiosity by stating that yes there are other indicators that the world during the Mesozoic era was quite different from the present. To give one example, consider the global climate of Mesozoic era. For all practical purposes, everywhere on the Earth's surface the temperature was the same. There was no ice at the poles nor was there ice at the top of the highest mountains. From the equator to the poles, and from the lowest dry valley to the highest mountain, there was no more than a few degrees difference in temperature. There are other sets of evidence as well. The gigantic dinosaurs and pterosaurs is just one of several sets of evidence giving testimony indicating that the Earth during the Mesozoic era was a very different world.
The focus of this chapter is to explain the physical limitations restricting the size of the terrestrial animals of today, thus clarifying why the gigantic animals of the Mesozoic era presents a scientific paradox. Below is a list of specific issues this chapter will address. The first three issues give the evidence clarifying the anomaly of the dinosaurs being so large. The last listed issue regarding the flight of pterosaurs will be taken up in the next chapter since the paradox of how the pterosaurs flew only becomes clear after a discussion of the science of flight.
There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:
Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs
Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs
Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs
Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown
Before starting on the first issue listed above, there needs to be a discussion of what is the mass of various dinosaurs. It would be most helpful to have accurate mass estimates of the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods.
The above is of course not a problem for creationists who already understand that the existing world is very different than the preload world. The evidence of the flood is glaring in the face of all "Christian" evolutionists, they simply refuser deny it. They prefer their own wisdom above that if God's word.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.In rejecting the truth of scripture concerning the major changes that have taken place in this world, and the devolution that has been taking place, evolutionary "Christians" are completely in the dark. Opening themselves up to ever increasing forms of deception. They end up not only rejecting the testimony of scripture, but all scientific evidence supporting or revealing the same, since it will not line up with what they have already chosen to believe in contradiction to the word of God. No one can change this for them, they must make this change themselves.
The exceptionally large size of the terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is not a subtle oddity to be dismissed but rather it is a glaring paradox that must be investigated. The essence of science - our belief that we exist in a rational reality - is at stake here.
The development of more efficient lungs, including the flow-through ventilation no only found in birds, would make such large beasts possible..
Something must have been different about the world during the Mesozoic era so as to allow terrestrial animals to grow so much larger.
There is some evidence of higher oxygen levels, but this is not well-established. What is well-established is more efficient lungs and more energetic animals. (Haversian canals are found in many dinosaur bones, indicating an active and energetic lifestyle)
For all practical purposes, everywhere on the Earth's surface the temperature was the same.
Carbon dioxide levels were higher then, and so things were warmer.
There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:
Sounds interesting...
Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs
Increase in size is limited by the fact that bones increase in strength by the square of their length, but body mass increases as the cube of the length. However:
Those four-legged titans of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, 200 million–65 million years ago, had a suite of specializations that enabled them to reach such immense proportions. With long necks, wide-opening jaws and rake-like teeth, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and their ilk swept their heads through the treetops, consuming vast amounts of foliage without expending a lot of energy moving their massive legs. Adaptations of the pelvis and limbs created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft, and hollowed-out vertebrae and relatively small heads lightened the load. Their specialized bone development made it possible for juvenile sauropods to grow quickly, putting on several tonnes per year.
Palaeontologists have long thought that these anatomical novelties arose with the large sauropods — that a burst of evolutionary specializations coincided with the explosion in size. But a slew of discoveries in recent years reveals that many important changes first showed up long before, among the relatively puny forerunners of sauropods known as the early sauropodomorphs. Paul Barrett, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, calls this group "the unsung members of the dino community".
Walking upright on two legs, the early sauropodomorphs looked nothing like the lumbering beasts that came to dominate later. But these small creatures and their descendants gradually acquired adaptations that changed how they ate, moved and breathed — in ways that would later enable sauropods to achieve their size
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110713/full/475159a.html
Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs
That's an error. Muscle strength increases as the cube of its length. So matches the increased mass.
Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs
Same argument goes for giraffes. How do they do it? All blood vessels have one-way valves in them, to prevent blood from reversing. The valves in the neck vessels of giraffes are very robust,preventing very high blood pressures. So probably the same adaptation in sauropods.
Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq8CHFGJ0aI
They were remarkably light for their size, and aerodynamically were certainly capable of flying. The first ones must have been rather clumsy, being aerodynamically stable with long tails like that of a kite. Later ones were aerodynamcally unstable, and therefore very maneuverable.
Before starting on the first issue listed above, there needs to be a discussion of what is the mass of various dinosaurs. It would be most helpful to have accurate mass estimates of the largest dinosaurs, the sauropods.
I suggest you look for Steven Vogel's
Life's Devices. It will be enlightening.
An example of why I refer to those who use the word "fact" as morons with respect to scientific theories:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a15877892/misliya-cave-human-evolution-fossils/
Science is constantly finding new evidence that changes the current accepted explanations. With all the discoveries of the last 200 years, can anyone say that in 100 years that all our current explanations that some call "fact" will be still held?
: Texas Conservative Fri Jan 26, 2018 - 15:51:36
An example of why I refer to those who use the word "fact" as morons with respect to scientific theories:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a15877892/misliya-cave-human-evolution-fossils/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a15877892/misliya-cave-human-evolution-fossils/)
Science is constantly finding new evidence that changes the current accepted explanations. With all the discoveries of the last 200 years, can anyone say that in 100 years that all our current explanations that some call "fact" will be still held?
As we've discussed before, the "facts" proposed by science lend to redefining via new evidence but the direction doesn't change, it's never a slate wiped clean with new information that is contrary to previous evidence. Science is moving in the right direction.
: Alan Fri Jan 26, 2018 - 19:31:06
As we've discussed before, the "facts" proposed by science lend to redefining via new evidence but the direction doesn't change, it's never a slate wiped clean with new information that is contrary to previous evidence. Science is moving in the right direction.
I am still correct, calling the best explanation with the current evidence a "fact" is dumb. And with time, the slate might be pretty clean if the evidence demands it.
: Texas Conservative Fri Jan 26, 2018 - 23:25:45I am still correct, calling the best explanation with the current evidence a "fact" is dumb. And with time, the slate might be pretty clean if the evidence demands it.
Do you think calling electromagnetism the best explanation for current flow through a copper wire when subjected to a voltage drop from one end to the other a fact is dumb? Do you think calling gravity the best explanation for a falling body is dumb?
: The Barbarian Fri Jan 26, 2018 - 15:48:17
The development of more efficient lungs, including the flow-through ventilation no only found in birds, would make such large beasts possible..
There is some evidence of higher oxygen levels, but this is not well-established. What is well-established is more efficient lungs and more energetic animals. (Haversian canals are found in many dinosaur bones, indicating an active and energetic lifestyle)
Carbon dioxide levels were higher then, and so things were warmer.
Sounds interesting...
Increase in size is limited by the fact that bones increase in strength by the square of their length, but body mass increases as the cube of the length. However:
Those four-legged titans of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, 200 million–65 million years ago, had a suite of specializations that enabled them to reach such immense proportions. With long necks, wide-opening jaws and rake-like teeth, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and their ilk swept their heads through the treetops, consuming vast amounts of foliage without expending a lot of energy moving their massive legs. Adaptations of the pelvis and limbs created a frame sturdy enough to support their heft, and hollowed-out vertebrae and relatively small heads lightened the load. Their specialized bone development made it possible for juvenile sauropods to grow quickly, putting on several tonnes per year.
Palaeontologists have long thought that these anatomical novelties arose with the large sauropods — that a burst of evolutionary specializations coincided with the explosion in size. But a slew of discoveries in recent years reveals that many important changes first showed up long before, among the relatively puny forerunners of sauropods known as the early sauropodomorphs. Paul Barrett, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, calls this group "the unsung members of the dino community".
Walking upright on two legs, the early sauropodomorphs looked nothing like the lumbering beasts that came to dominate later. But these small creatures and their descendants gradually acquired adaptations that changed how they ate, moved and breathed — in ways that would later enable sauropods to achieve their size
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110713/full/475159a.html
That's an error. Muscle strength increases as the cube of its length. So matches the increased mass.
Same argument goes for giraffes. How do they do it? All blood vessels have one-way valves in them, to prevent blood from reversing. The valves in the neck vessels of giraffes are very robust,preventing very high blood pressures. So probably the same adaptation in sauropods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq8CHFGJ0aI
They were remarkably light for their size, and aerodynamically were certainly capable of flying. The first ones must have been rather clumsy, being aerodynamically stable with long tails like that of a kite. Later ones were aerodynamcally unstable, and therefore very maneuverable.
I suggest you look for Steven Vogel's Life's Devices. It will be enlightening.
Yes, I understand the idol of the ever evolving theory of evolution can and will account for any and every problem or evidence against it, by simply claiming adaption and evolution resolving all such. Which it always does and will continue to do, regardless of how well the straight testimony of scripture regarding creation and the flood also resolves the problems, or fit the evidence. The real issue being addressed and played out in the creation evolution debate is faith as always. Evolutionists demonstrate and continually support faith in fallen humanities powers of observation and conclusion as the highest authority, while creationists continually demonstrate faith in the word of God and conclusions drawn from observation in relation to its testimony, as the highest authority. Evolution exalts the testimony of humanity, creation exalts the testimony of God.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html
What Killed The Dinosaurs?
EXTINCTION THEORIES
Two main camps exist in paleontology today, each having a different view of what killed the dinosaurs and other organisms at the K-T boundary. Controversy has surrounded the topic since 1980; it has become difficult for the public (and the scientific world at large) to understand the issue due to the tangled assemblage of data which seems to point in many different directions. Luckily, the controversy has not harmed the study of mass extinction causation, but rather has made it a dynamic and interesting area. Every groundbreaking new hypothesis makes new headlines in the media, and excites researchers to delve further into the mystery.
The major sides of the schism can be broken down (greatly simplifying the issue, but making it more accessible) into "intrinsic gradualists" and "extrinsic catastrophists." We'll describe each generalized group in turn, and then try to synthesize the available information so you can form your own opinion. But first, let's outline what scientists generally agree that we know about the K-T boundary.
Where is God or scriptural testimony in the above? Neither is even considered. The following sentence from the above correctly identifies what evolutionary theory really is, in relation to the scriptures and God. Emphasis mine, "We'll describe each generalized group in turn, and then try to synthesize the available information
so you can form your own opinion." Evolution is the opinions of fallen humanity juxtaposed to, or in contradiction to the word of God. The latest and most subtle, flexible, and deceptive idol created by fallen humanity in defiance of God and His word.
The third extinction theory not mentioned in the above quote, is of course extinction by the global flood described in scripture. This theory explains the conditions necessary to the formation of fossils better than all others proposed. It is supported by the majority of the evidence concerning fossils, which I have demonstrated on these boards before, are generally acknowledged to be related to flood conditions and rapid burial due to the same. Many fossils also demonstrating physical signs associated with drowning and or being almost instantly captured and entombed unto fossilization. Both of which are more likely to have happened in a global flood than any of the other scenarios presented, saving the same conditions produced over and over in smaller more localized floods. Nevertheless, these fossils being found all over the world, is obviously suggestive of a global flood rather than countless localized floods. This considering the fact that were not just talking about evidence of dinosaur extinction, but evidence of mass catastrophic destruction of all varying life forms found all over the world. The bible's flood account is an obvious and excellent explanation of said evidence. Todays modern idol worshippers of the evolutionary theory will not go there though, they have chosen another faith.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html
The common ground
There was global climatic change; the environment changed from a warm, mild one in the Mesozoic to a cooler, more varied one in the Cenozoic. The cause of this climate change, and the speed at which it proceeded, are the major concerns of both schools of thought.
The above quote is from the same link provided in my last post. Again, the biblical account of creation and the flood addresses the above points, but is not considered by those worshipping at the feet of the evolution idol. According to scripture the entire world was completely changed by the global flood, and all life not spared in the ark came to a catastrophic end. Exactly as the evidence under examination at this link suggests. The catastrophists of the evolutionary theory are of course more in line with creationists on this one, though not intentionally as is obvious.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html
2 As well as a permanent global climatic change, there is evidence that there were less lasting changes at the end of the Cretaceous period. These changes may have been the result of a massive terrestrial disturbance, which threw up soot into the air, causing short term acid rain, emission of poisonous gases, and cooling (similar to a nuclear winter). Long term consequences would have been a global greenhouse effect (warming and reduced sunlight).
More of the same, from the same link. All of the above is easily deduced as consequence of the global flood described in scripture. Of course there would be less change in the world after a global flood changing everything at once. God Himself promising that this would never happen again. The next time this world will completely change all at once, will be when Christ returns and the world is destroyed by fire.
The flood produced torrents of rain for the first time, and also included the fountains of the great deep being broken up, that is released into the atmosphere under immense pressure from the same. This shooting massive amounts of water and other materials high into the earths atmosphere and producing the exact conditions described by the idol worshippers of the link above. All of this of course is nit even considered y those who place their faith in fallen human observation at contradiction to the word of God. The following links provide a theoretical scale of such produced by the global flood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzijddw1qQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html
3 As discussed before, many organisms; both marine and terrestrial, vertebrate and invertebrate; went extinct. The reason for this extinction was probably this climate change.
4 At or near the K-T boundary in several places around the globe, we have a thin layer of clay with an unusually high iridium (a rare metal similar to platinum) content. This may be evidence for the dust cloud in #2 above.
Both of the above from the same link are again easily accounted for in the biblical scenario of creation and the global flood. The biblical account is simply rejected in favor of speculations of fallen humanity.
: 4WD Sat Jan 27, 2018 - 06:04:40
Do you think calling electromagnetism the best explanation for current flow through a copper wire when subjected to a voltage drop from one end to the other a fact is dumb? Do you think calling gravity the best explanation for a falling body is dumb?
If you read what I wrote, i am not calling the best explanation dumb. I am saying calling it a "fact" is dumb.
And if you were aware of electromagnetc theory, you would know that the current does not go "through" a wire, it travels largely long the outside and to an an interior depth known as the skin depth. In electrical substations bus bar (or metal piping) is largely used due to this principle.
: Texas Conservative Sat Jan 27, 2018 - 09:43:02If you read what I wrote, i am not calling the best explanation dumb. I am saying calling it a "fact" is dumb.
If you read what I wrote, that is what I asked.
: 4WD Sat Jan 27, 2018 - 10:46:56
If you read what I wrote, that is what I asked.
Calling something a fact that is not a fact is indeed dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE-gI9gYXo
I don't recall if I have posted this video before. A good one concerning creation and dinosaurs. Evolutionists will of course to agree.
That was a great video; thanks ::tippinghat::
Yes, I understand the idol of the ever evolving theory of evolution can and will account for any and every problem or evidence against it, by simply claiming adaption and evolution resolving all such.
I merely showed you why those ideas fail; the evidence won't support them. Faith won't work for science. If you have an idea, evidence is required if you want anyone to believe it.
Put your faith in God, not creationism. And then this won't be a problem for you.
I don't recall if I have posted this video before. A good one concerning creation and dinosaurs. Evolutionists will of course to agree.
I got as far as the point where the narrator falsely claimed that Schweitzer had reported intact RBCs and blood vessels in fossil dinosaurs.
That's not her finding. And it tells me all I need to know about the honesty of the person who put that video together.
http://greaterancestors.com/giant-zebra-defies-horse-evolution-chart/
Giant Zebra defies Horse Evolution Chart
Equus capensis was a Zebra species that lived during the Pleistocene and even into the Recent. It died out about 12,000 years ago. This species is sometimes referred to as the "cape zebra". It was larger than zebras of today. Equus carpensis was about 1.9 m. (6.2 feet) tall at the shoulder. (Low estimate) Fossils of E. capensis have been found in South Africa.
Fossilized remains of Equus capensis have been discovered in Equus Cave in the Taung district of Northwest Province in South Africa. This cave was excavated in the years 1978-1982 by Beaumont (of McGregor Museum) and Shackley. Fossils have also been unearthed at the Elandsfontein site in South Africa.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210092001.htm
DNA sheds new light on horse evolution
The study used bones from caves to identify new horse species in Eurasia and South America, and reveal that the Cape zebra, an extinct giant species from South Africa, were simply large variants of the modern Plains zebra. The Cape zebra weighed up to 400 kilograms and stood up to 150 centimetres at the shoulder blades.
https://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse
Conclusion
A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds. Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved, and it appears rather to be a case of intelligent design instead of "microevolution" (variation within a kind, as suggested by various creationists) or "macroevolution" (new kinds of organisms, as suggested by evolutionists).
The Cavanaugh et al. (2003)14 hypothesis of intrabaraminic variation of all animals that belong to Equidae (or animals that they did put into Equidae, even if the evolutionists put some of them in different families) is not well supported by the available evidence and ought therefore to be abandoned.
Addendum
According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000. He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem.26 But this faith did not help him in the end, and will not help any other evolutionist either, as this calculation is based on the origin of positive mutations, even before natural selection would start to work. If all electrons in the universe (about 1080) would have participated in 1012 reactions every second, during the 30 billion years which evolutionists have put as the upper age limit of the universe, there would still not have been more than c. 10110 possibly interactions—still a long way from the Huxley calculation.1
Denial is not science.
All emphasis in the following quotes from provided links is mine.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, "Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?" Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, "I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can't be. Red blood cells don't preserve." Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. "When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that's what they look like," her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: "Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that's not what they are."
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. "It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation," she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
She found red blood cells, then was told to find evidence that they were not, for obvious reasons. So she did. she came up with a faulty theory concerning blood cell preservation by iron, which theory Mark Armitage debunks in the following address -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqQmkoJXMY
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper
Just how those collagen sequences survived tens of millions of years is not clear. Schweitzer suggests that as red blood cells decay after an animal dies, iron liberated from their hemoglobin may react with nearby proteins, linking them together. This crosslinking, she says, causes proteins to precipitate out of solution, drying them out in a way that helps preserve them. That's possible, Collins says. But he doesn't think the process could arrest protein degradation for tens of millions of years, so he, for one, remains skeptical of Schweitzer's claim. "Proteins decay in an orderly fashion. We can slow it down, but not by a lot," Collins says...........................................
Still, his work, too, suggests that collagen fragments can survive for astonishing periods of time. Meanwhile, Schweitzer's team is going beyond collagen. In a 2015 paper in Analytical Chemistry, her group reported isolating fragments of eight other proteins from fossils of dinosaurs and extinct birds, including hemoglobin in blood, the cytoskeletal protein actin, and histones that help package DNA. Comparing those sequences from many different species could reveal evolution's handiwork over geological time, much as studies of ancient DNA do today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer
Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who lead the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a gravid female when she died.[3]
http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637
Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells
RALEIGH—Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.
Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.
Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.
Schweitzer and her collaborators detailed their findings in a paper released online October 16 in the journal Bone and in a talk given October 17 in Raleigh at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. "Here's the data in support of a biofilm origin," Schweitzer said in her presentation as she showed a blank slide. "We haven't found any yet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS6TXh_bx8Q
Giant Zebra defies Horse Evolution Chart
You were misled about that. It's just a large species of zebra, a member of the genus Equus, modern horses.
A study of fossil horses reveals at least three groups of animals within the horse family Equidae, in addition to some unrelated animals such as tapirs. The three equid groups correspond closely to different subfamilies of Equidae, and could be considered three separate created kinds.
The existence of numerous transitionals and genetic data show common descent for all equids. Would you like to learn more about that?
Most of these different kinds lived (or actually, were buried!) nearly at the same time and do not show much progressive change as far as horse evolution is concerned, just a general increase in size.
No, that's wrong, too...
(https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.unbound.co/p/images/1759/original/phylogeny_horse.jpg?1435934351)
If you'd like some detail on specific transitions, let me know. There are a lot of them.
No one has explained how new, specialized kinds of teeth could have supposedly evolved,
That's wrong, too. The transition was rather slow for a long time, with a lot of transitional teeth. Would you like to talk about those?
From the Horse's Mouth: Teeth Reveal Evolutionhe first horses in North America emerged about 55.5 million years ago. They were small, fox-size animals with four toes and low-crowned teeth. They lived in a warm, moist, forested environment, and the wear on their rounded cusps matches those of fruit-eaters, Mihlbachler said.
Around 33 million years ago, the horses' teeth changed noticeably, with the cusps of a fruit-eater being replaced by the sharper points associated with a diet of leaves. By this time, the rain forests had disappeared and the climate went through a cool spell.
"The signal we are getting in the change in horses' diet is very consistent with what we understand about how the climate was changing," Mihlbachler said.
About 18 million years ago, the teeth of some ancient horses, those most closely related to modern horses, changed markedly. The surface of their molars became more complex and better suited for chewing tough plants, particularly grasses, which contain particles of silica that can wear down teeth. The teeth also began growing taller. [Mystery of Tooth Strength Cracked]
These changes appear to be related to the spread of grasslands, which prompted some horses to add grass to their diets.
"The changes in the teeth are just slightly behind the environment and dietary trends, which is very consistent with the hypothesis of adaptation," Mihlbachler said.
After this, tooth height continued to increase, likely in response to harsher, particularly colder, climate conditionsand the continued spread of grasslands. Horses with less abrasive, leafy diets stayed in the picture for a while, then disappeared about 10 million years ago.
Intermediate diets later disappeared, and the highly abrasive, grassy diets of modern horses have been the norm for the last 4 million to 5 million years, roughly the amount of the time the modern horse has been in existence.
According to Julian Huxley (arguably one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century) at least one million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve. He believed that there is a maximum of one positive mutation in a total of 1,000 mutations. With the help of these values Huxley calculated the probability for the horse to have evolved from one single unicellular organism was 1 in 103,000,000.
Nope. You're assuming horses evolved from a unicellular organism, but they evolved from primitive ungulate. Let's take a look at your assumptions:
1. Assume 10,000 individuals in each horse species. (most have had millions, but let's err on the side of small numbers.
2. There are usually dozens of mutations in each individual. But let's just say there was an average of 10.
3. So that means 100,000 mutations in one generation, or about 100 per generation
4. If we assume a new generation every 10 years, that means in 55,000,000 years, there have been about 5,500,000 generations,which means 550,000,000 favorable mutations, far more than needed.
He believed, however, that natural selection would be able to solve this problem.
That's how favorable mutations work. They tend to be preserved, because they increase the likelihood of an individual living long enough to reproduce. The neutral ones don't do much, and may or may not be preserved, and the bad ones tend to disappear.
This is one reason why the probablility argument is such a loser for creationists. Here's the other; given the genes of your great, great great grandparents, the likelihood of you having any particular allele is 0.25 to the 6th power or about 0.00002. The chance having all your alleles is: 6.6073302758056549920833976291965e-1807, basically 6, with 1807 zeros in front of it.
So now you've "proven" that you're impossible. You think something might be wrong here?
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html
One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.
Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.152
While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of the evolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger brought the transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty of all.
Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153
Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.
http://www.icr.org/article/what-about-horse-series/
A sketch showing the supposed evolution of the horse has appeared in nearly every textbook dealing with evolution. Typically, it illustrates a transition from Eohippus (size of a small dog, four toes on the front foot and three on the rear, possessing browsing teeth and found in Eocene strata) to Mesohippus (a slightly larger browser, three toes on the front, found primarily in Oligocene strata) to Merychippus (larger still, three toed but with grazing teeth, found in Miocene strata) to Pliohippus (pony sized, still with three toes and grazing teeth, found throughout the Pliocene) to modern Equus, or horse (with one toe, front and back, and with grazing teeth). Unfortunately, this presentation does not contain the whole truth.
In modem decades, the tree of horse evolution has been refuted and abandoned, in professional circles at least. Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, ... Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986). Mr. Walt Barnhart, in his master's thesis (1987) at ICR, catalogued this overlap in 21 different genera with data from the evolutionary literature. Dotted lines represent uncertainties in dating. Most individual categories are known only from their teeth. It is hard to see any evolutionary sequence here.
A significant problem surfaced when Lou Sunderland observed (in Darwin's Enigma) that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Some series!
Furthermore, the Eohippus, more properly named Hyracotherium, is remarkably similar to the modern hyrax, a rock badger. The San Diego Zoo keeps a colony, where a sign identifies them as similar to the animal, which evolved into the horse and elephant. Others propose a hyrax-like ancestor for the sea cow also. Quite a family tree.
Dr. Duane Gish has observed (Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record) that during the time when four toes were supposedly evolving into one in North America, in South America a one-toed ungulate (a horse-like browser) was evolving into a three-toed descendant. Evolution theory, being as plastic as it is, can accommodate almost any series of fossils, and tell a good evolutionary "just so" story about how it all happened.
A better understanding of the fossil data would be to consider the 21 genera in Barnhart's chart as belonging to three created kinds. Each category is quite different, and there are no transitional forms between them. The evidence is quite compatible with the true history we read in Genesis.
http://harunyahya.com/en/Articles/19833/the-evolution-of-the-horse
This fictitious series was portrayed as the greatest supposed evidence for the evolution of the horse for the following century. The decrease in the number of toes and the regular increase in size, from smaller to larger, was enough to convince evolutionists.
Shortly afterward, inconsistencies within the horse series began manifesting themselves. New fossils dug up and attempted to be inserted into the false horse series became a problem. Because characteristics such as the fossils' location, age and toe number formed inconsistencies and impaired the series, which turned into an inconsistent and meaningless mass of fossils in the face of these new specimens.
Many Darwinists were gradually forced to admit that the Darwinist horse series scenario was not based on any genuine evidence. In November 1980 a 4-day conference was held in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, which was attended by 150 evolutionists and considered the problems facing the theory of evolution. Boyce Rensberger, who spoke at the conference, described how the horse series had no basis in the fossil record and that no such gradual process as the evolution of the horse ever happened:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
Another problem in the fictitious evolution of the horse series is that of dating. Doctor Nicholas Comninellis comments:
An additional challenge to the proposal of horse evolution is that the timing is inconsistent. The theory of evolution is based on the concept that one species is prone to evolve into another because it is better adapted for survival. This leads to extinction of the first species. In the case of horses, the three-toed must not have been as hearty as the one-toed. Evolution demands millions of years for transition to occur between species— plenty of time for the first species to die out.
However, today we know that the three-toed and one-toed horses lived together in North America. The fact that varieties of horses co-existed is completely inconsistent with evolution's explanation. Add to this the fact that missing links between Hyracotherium, Miohippus, and Equus have never been identified. Rather than lending support for evolution, the history of the horse is more consistent with special creation—fully formed beings that were created simultaneously. ii
Although the invalidity of the evolution of the horse series has been brought out into the open day and Darwinists have admitted this state of affairs, this mythical series is still used, like other Darwinist frauds, in Darwinist publications and text books. The series is depicted as concrete fact and placed on display in museums of natural history curated by world-famous paleontologists and scientists. Dr. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionist and paleontologist who served as director of the world-renowned American Museum of Natural History, admitted some 20 years ago that evolutionist claims regarding the horse series on display in his own museum were based solely upon their powers of imagination. Eldredge also criticized the way that this speculative series was portrayed as scientific fact in such a way as to find its way into school books:
I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem.
Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153
Eldredge was commenting on the people who presented the evolution of horses as a ladder. His point was that it wasn't a ladder, but a bush, with many branches, only one of which survives today, not that he doubted that the evolution of horses. You probably never read the actual article, so when some dishonest person presented the edited part to you, it was easy to deceive you.
Awhile back I heard a brief news report about information released by scientists concerning a twenty year study of the Earth's topography and how much change occurred over a twenty year period of 1990 to 2010. Evolutionists would have us believe that this Earth formed and changed over billions of years. Well, scientists have noted dramatic changes taken place over a mere twenty year period. Evolutionists also believe in Santa Claus and still stand in line at malls to ask him for presents.
Here's one study that I found:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110982315000034
Awhile back I heard a brief news report about information released by scientists concerning a twenty year study of the Earth's topography and how much change occurred over a twenty year period of 1990 to 2010.
Nothing to compare to the sorts of things we see like erosion of mountains, rising of new ones, and canyons of rejuvenated rivers. Those take many millions of years.
Evolutionists would have us believe that this Earth formed and changed over billions of years.
So the evidence shows.
Well, scientists have noted dramatic changes taken place over a mere twenty year period.
No mountain ranges suddenly emerging or wearing down. No Grand Canyons suddenly being cut out. Some things take a very, very long time.
: notreligus Fri Feb 09, 2018 - 19:44:01
Evolutionists also believe in Santa Claus and still stand in line at malls to ask him for presents.
Foolish comment. No, evolutionists do not believe in Santa Claus and I would put money on the fact that there are just as many YE Christians in the Santa line as any other group.
: notreligus Fri Feb 09, 2018 - 19:44:01Evolutionists also believe in Santa Claus and still stand in line at malls to ask him for presents.
Personal digs are always the last line of attack when someone is desperately trying to save their argument from natural death.
: Open Heart Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 05:43:20
Personal digs are always the last line of attack when someone is desperately trying to save their argument from natural death.
If you think creationism is dying, you are not very well informed.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/
Living Fossils
"Living fossil" typically describes a living organism that looks like a fossilized organism but has no close living relatives by evolutionary reckoning. While dinosaurs no longer walk the earth (as far as we know), we can still observe living examples of animals and plants that shared the world with dinosaurs.
Living Proof
"Living fossils" pose a conundrum. Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically? The answer is easy for creationists.
Fish Story - Coelacanth
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years, which is why it keeps turning up—and conveniently reminding us of the fallibility of the supposed indisputable science evolutionary paleontologists feed the public.
Spider Fossilized in Amber
Huntsman spiders have made no evolutionary progress or even any speciation changes since this one managed to get himself entombed. He appears as modern as his descendants. This fact does not surprise us, since we are confident that the amber is no more than a few thousand years old.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/living-proof/
Living Proof
A giant salamander has been discovered in rock layers that evolutionists date at 30 million years. Yet it is virtually identical to the giant salamanders living today, which can get up to 5.5 feet long.
Such "living fossils" pose a conundrum. Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?
The answer is easy for creationists. This fossil appears in a rock layer above those associated with the Flood. It appears to be one of many animals that repopulated the earth after the Flood, only a few thousand years ago.
Given the short time frame, it is not surprising to find such little change among some animals, and this helps confirm that the earth is not millions of years old.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/living-fossils-detachable-chart/
Living fossils are found throughout the fossil layers. In fact, almost every "family" of living animals has an amazingly similar ancestor preserved deep in the fossil record. What does this mean?
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v6/n1/fossil-chart.pdf
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/living-fossils/fossil-turtles-confound-evolutionists/
Fossil Turtles Confound Evolutionists
Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.1 However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!
The fossils are "believed" to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look "basically the same as sea turtles do today."2
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is "dated" at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since "remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years," Discovery reports.
How do the evolutionists explain this? The Australian researchers are quoted as saying that the "sea turtles have hit on the winning design ... [and] cracked the winning code." Notice how the evolutionists describe the turtles-as if they are highly intelligent, creative, forward-looking engineers, which they are not, of course. Evolution is supposedly based on natural selection and mutations, which are mindless, directionless, blind natural processes.
Not only are these turtle fossils contrary to the theory of perpetual and gradual evolutionary change, they also simultaneously refute the notion of millions of years. It is simply unbelievable that these turtles could remain unchanged for over 100 million years, given that information-degrading mutations are known to accumulate in living things, generation after generation (a consequence of the Curse of Genesis 3).
Turvy Fossils
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc&index=1&list=PLBBvobkI64L_P1NVxFmvwH5vN2rExDW5v
Turvy human dinosaur fossil examination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQeN7INIc8
If you think creationism is dying, you are not very well informed.
Creationism has been remarkably resistant to change over time, but it is now slowly declining:
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
More on human dino prints.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQqa90e9KQ
The following video is rather dated, yet very revealing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcFHaWs3-7Q
: The Barbarian Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 13:44:44
Creationism has been remarkably resistant to change over time, but it is now slowly declining:
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx (http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx)
Shocked that it's still that high. The education system clearly still has much work to do.
: Alan Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 16:07:02
Shocked that it's still that high. The education system clearly still has much work to do.
We clearly need them to indoctrinate our young for atheism and other libtarded ideals that go along with it as well.
More on human dino prints.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQqa90e9KQ
The "Paluxy Man-tracks" were debunked by a group of YE creationists:
A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
Creation Evolution Journal
However, not all creationists agreed with Taylor's interpretations. Even before Taylor's film was released, the Taylor site was studied by a team of creationists from Loma Linda University (Neufeld, 1975), who reported that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits and concluded that the tracks were probably eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks (although they did not adequately explain the elongate nature of the tracks). Other creationists, including Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc. (1981), and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society (1971, 1981), also visited the site soon after it was first exposed and expressed skepticism about the "mantrack" claims.
Nevertheless, the impact of Taylor's film and other creationist works which promoted the "mantrack" claims led to wide acclaim for the Taylor site among creationists. At the time, most evolutionists familiar with these claims apparently did not feel that they were worth careful investigation and typically dismissed them with one or more generalizations. Some suggested that all the "mantracks" were carvings or erosion marks. Others attributed them to middle digit impressions of bipedal dinosaurs or mud-collapsed specimens of typical tridactyl dinosaur tracks. Although some of these explanations did pertain to alleged human tracks on other sites, none of them adequately explained all the features of the Taylor site "mantracks."
...
I would like to clarify my position on the creation-evolution controversy and my reasons for researching and reporting on the Paluxy evidence.
I prefer not to be labeled a creationist or an evolutionist, since I do not fully identify with all of the tenets often assumed to typify each camp. I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence.
Creation Evolution Journal Number: 1 Quarter: Winter Page(s): 10–18 Year: 1986
I've been there. There are a large number of dinosaur tracks there; as old ones get eroded, new ones get exposed. Haven't seen any that resembled human foot prints, but I've seen a large number of them that look like the prints in the report. All have marks consistent with dinosaur feet.
: The Barbarian Sat Feb 10, 2018 - 17:32:05
The "Paluxy Man-tracks" were debunked by a group of YE creationists:
A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
Creation Evolution Journal
However, not all creationists agreed with Taylor's interpretations. Even before Taylor's film was released, the Taylor site was studied by a team of creationists from Loma Linda University (Neufeld, 1975), who reported that several of the tracks in the Taylor Trail showed indications of dinosaurian digits and concluded that the tracks were probably eroded remains of three-toed dinosaur tracks (although they did not adequately explain the elongate nature of the tracks). Other creationists, including Dr. Ernest Booth of Outdoor Pictures, Inc. (1981), and Wilbert Rusch, president of the Creation Research Society (1971, 1981), also visited the site soon after it was first exposed and expressed skepticism about the "mantrack" claims.
Nevertheless, the impact of Taylor's film and other creationist works which promoted the "mantrack" claims led to wide acclaim for the Taylor site among creationists. At the time, most evolutionists familiar with these claims apparently did not feel that they were worth careful investigation and typically dismissed them with one or more generalizations. Some suggested that all the "mantracks" were carvings or erosion marks. Others attributed them to middle digit impressions of bipedal dinosaurs or mud-collapsed specimens of typical tridactyl dinosaur tracks. Although some of these explanations did pertain to alleged human tracks on other sites, none of them adequately explained all the features of the Taylor site "mantracks."
...
I would like to clarify my position on the creation-evolution controversy and my reasons for researching and reporting on the Paluxy evidence.
I prefer not to be labeled a creationist or an evolutionist, since I do not fully identify with all of the tenets often assumed to typify each camp. I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence.
Creation Evolution Journal Number: 1 Quarter: Winter Page(s): 10–18 Year: 1986
I've been there. There are a large number of dinosaur tracks there; as old ones get eroded, new ones get exposed. Haven't seen any that resembled human foot prints, but I've seen a large number of them that look like the prints in the report. All have marks consistent with dinosaur feet.
Some one is most certainly lying. No surprise in that, the implications are of course devastating to the theory of evolution. Creationists on one of the video even claim eye witness account of an evolutionist destroying the evidence, as on other videos I shared have as well. In the end, one of these groups will be found to be liars, and end up where all liars eventually go. May God convict their hearts to repent and reveal the truth, that they might escape the lake of fire. If it be true, the CT scanned prints are rather convincing evidence I would say.
Some one is most certainly lying.
Some of them...
The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some strict or "young earth" creationists to be a "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930's. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print's surface, confirming it's carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original "up" direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm
Others are honest mistakes, where dinosaur footprints were confused for human prints.
Most creationists have abandoned these stories. Indeed, YE creationists have debunked a number of them.
: The Barbarian Sun Feb 11, 2018 - 22:47:14
Some of them...
The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some strict or "young earth" creationists to be a "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930's. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print's surface, confirming it's carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original "up" direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm
Others are honest mistakes, where dinosaur footprints were confused for human prints.
Most creationists have abandoned these stories. Indeed, YE creationists have debunked a number of them.
Like I said, someone is lying, and we will all know who in the end. One side does CT scans to prove it isn't carved, the other insists it is. We can't all examine everything for ourselves. The liars will seriously regret dong so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PByjvTf_DGM
More challenges to the presuppositions of the self appointed "scientific elites".
: Amo Fri Feb 16, 2018 - 09:07:31
Like I said, someone is lying, and we will all know who in the end.
No one is lying, that's a fallacy that you and your ilk have fabricated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX9neaUCBLw
Excellent video about Noah's ark.
: Alan Fri Feb 16, 2018 - 09:12:06
No one is lying, that's a fallacy that you and your ilk have fabricated.
Surprise surprise, you don't believe the scriptures which teach of the devil, deception, liars, and scoffers of the last days. Such is just more fabricated fairly tales like the creation account, flood account, fourth commandment, and whatever else other scriptures don't fit your own version of how it all really is.
: Amo Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:25:53
Surprise surprise, you don't believe the scriptures which teach of the devil, deception, liars, and scoffers of the last days. Such is just more fabricated fairly tales like the creation account, flood account, fourth commandment, and whatever else other scriptures don't fit your own version of how it all really is.
I could say the same to you but you already know how that goes.... ::juggle::
: Alan Sat Feb 17, 2018 - 09:28:51
I could say the same to you but you already know how that goes.... ::juggle::
Here we are, quote the scripture and point out how I do not believe it.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:
The letter and the rest of the article may be viewed at the link provided above.
Ever increasing problems and scrutiny of the theory of evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/with-two-new-fossils-evolutionists-rewrite-narratives-to-accommodate-conflicting-evidence/
With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence
Two new fossils, described in August and September 2017, have again forced evolutionists to rewrite their fanciful narratives of how major transitions in the history of life occurred. In this case the new fossils disarrayed, respectively, the origin of tetrapod land vertebrates and of bird feathers and flight...................................
Thus, this fossil raises two important problems for evolutionary biology:
1 The character distribution is incongruent and implies independent parallel origins of the same tetrapod-like or rhizodont-like characters (convergence). The alternative explanations of independent origin (homoplasy) versus common origin (homology) of a character trait is not alone decided based on anatomic (dis)similarities but mainly based on the (in)congruence with other data. The same data that are considered evidence of convergence can become evidence for common ancestry when you switch positions in the tree, and vice versa. What most evolutionary biologists have exorcised from their mind is that such incongruences (homoplasies) per se are not evidence for evolution as some evolutionists boldly proclaim (Wells 2017) but, instead, prima facie conflicting evidence against it (Hunter 2017). Convergence, which Lee Spetner has called "even more implausible than evolution itself" (Klinghoffer 2017), and other incongruent similarities have to be explained away with ad hoc hypotheses. In past decades, convergence morphed from an inconvenient exception to the rule — to a ubiquitous phenomenon, found virtually everywhere in living nature. In his book Life's Solution, paleontologist Conway Morris (2003) felt compelled to declare it a kind of necessary natural law. It thus cannot really be considered a success story for the Darwinian paradigm.
2 Rhizodontids, the group to which this fossil fish belongs, are believed to have branched off early from the lobefin-tetrapod lineage, more than 415 million years ago. However, the oldest fossils are dated to only 377 million years ago, implying a so-called "ghost lineage" of 38 million years when the group should have existed but left no fossil record at all. Such "ghost lineages" are one of the many instances of discontinuity in the fossil record and require ad hoc assumptions in order to be accommodated by evolutionary storytelling.
These two new fossils represent further evidence conflicting with previously accepted evolutionary narratives. But thank God evolutionary theory can easily adapt to such inconvenient evidence, simply by rewriting the story. That way, the new evidence fits perfectly.
Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics. They call into question whether evolutionary biology really qualifies as a hard science at all. Arguably it is not a testable theory, or even a well-defined one, but merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence — any evidence whatsoever.
The game is an old one. You take a fossil and do a C-14 test. When there is almost no C-14 left in a sample, it merely reads whatever the upper limit to the particular instrument might be. It's like measuring the temperature of a blast furnace with a candy thermometer, and then claim that the melted steel is only 520 degrees F.
No scientist is fooled by that.
With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence
You quote seems to be completely at odds with the actual paper.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-017-1496-y
Could you explain the discrepancies, and what they mean?
: The Barbarian Sun Feb 18, 2018 - 21:58:39
You quote seems to be completely at odds with the actual paper.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-017-1496-y
Could you explain the discrepancies, and what they mean?
Expound please. Are you referring to a paper quoted in the article I quoted? What is the discrepancy, and the nature of your contention with it?
Expound please. Are you referring to a paper quoted in the article I quoted? What is the discrepancy, and the nature of your contention with it?
I'm pointing out that your characterization seems to be at odds with the paper itself. Please explain how you think the paper supports your interpretation.
Living Fossils
"Living fossils" pose a conundrum.
For creationists, they do. Not for scientists.
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?
It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason. If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution. Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time. Coelacanths are a good example of this.
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years
Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then. They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record. They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.
The species of huntsman spider found in amber is not known to exist today. It is a new species of the genus Crassipes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21528355
: The Barbarian Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 23:17:26
I'm pointing out that your characterization seems to be at odds with the paper itself. Please explain how you think the paper supports your interpretation.
It wasn't about supporting my view, as much as revealing the ever changing tales of evolution. It is not an established science. It is an ever changing dialogue of speculations presented as factual science, which speculations are very often proved wrong.
Living Fossils
For creationists, they do. Not for scientists.
Expound. How would creatures not changing over time be a problem for creationists? It is not. It is not necessary to our understanding as it is to yours.
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?
It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason. If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution. Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time. Coelacanths are a good example of this.
Wrong! Even evolutionists acknowledge major changes between the ancient world as they see it, and our existing one.
These major changes involved the catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs and countless other animals and species including a great many sea creatures. These facts alone at the very least completely changed the environment Coelacanths lived in. Do you deny these claims of major changes by evolutionists, or will you maintain two apposing positions to justify your faith?
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years
Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then. They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record. They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.
Even according to your faulty understanding, this means the fish were not extinct but simply continued to change. How have evolutionists concluded these considerable differences with nothing but fossils to speculate upon? Or, how do you know fossils of these coelacanths just haven't been found yet? The following is of some significance as well.
https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no
For example, evolutionists once said that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was explained that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. As long as the coelacanth was 'extinct', such speculation seemed impossible to disprove. But with the discovery of a living coelacanth in 1938 and their subsequent observation, it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Also, its soft parts were found to be totally fish-like, not transitional. It's now known also that the coelacanth has some unique features. It gives birth to live young after about a year's gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals. (Surely evidence of having been designed.) Thus the finding of live coelacanths proved fatal to the idea that such were a 'transitional form' from which amphibians (and subsequently land animals and birds) are descended.2
The species of huntsman spider found in amber is not known to exist today. It is a new species of the genus Crassipes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21528355
http://www.icr.org/article/scan-amber-trapped-spider-shows-recent/
Scan of Amber-Trapped Spider Shows Recent Origin
A piece of oxygen-darkened amber was said to hold a particular arachnid, but it wasn't clearly visible. Scientists made a surprising discovery when a computed tomography scan was able to produce a finely detailed three-dimensional image of a hunting spider. But if the amber is actually 49 million years old, as is claimed, why hadn't it completely darkened long ago? And why do the spider's living relatives not show any signs of evolutionary change after all of this supposed time?
The amber was obviously much more translucent when first collected in the mid-1800s, but it had since oxidized and lost its transparency. Records indicated that it contained a certain kind of hunting spider, "but this seemed strange as huntsman spiders are strong, quick animals that would be unlikely to be trapped in tree resin."1 Scientists needed a way to closely examine the inclusion, and computed tomography (CT) provided the answer.................................
The specimen was collected from the famous Baltic amber deposits and first described in 1854. Since then, oxygen has reacted with the biopolymer that comprises the amber, causing it to darken. This raises a serious doubt about this fossil's age assignment. If this much discoloration can occur in less than 160 years, then what stopped it from having occurred during the previous 49 million years?
All rocks are porous, some more than others. And there are no known rock types that are able to totally block oxygen from passing through them. So even if the most oxygen-gas-flow-resistant earth material completely encased the Baltic amber for eons, the amber still should have turned black millions of years ago because of all the oxygen that would have leaked in during that time. This amber, like so many others, looks as though it is at most thousands, not millions, of years old.3
Also, one would expect evolution to have at least transformed the huntsman spider into a different species of spider, if not a completely different creature, after 49 million years. After all, mutations occur relentlessly, and according to Darwin, "nature" constantly selects the fittest of the mutants. But the high-resolution details of the outer surface of this specimen were sufficient to easily identify it as virtually identical to the modern species Eusparassus crassipes.2
There seems to be a discrepancy between your article and mine. I didn't actually see where your article said the spider in amber was unknown today or of a different species as you say, though I might miss such concerning scientific terminology. Are they virtually identical, or completely different and different species?
Expound. How would creatures not changing over time be a problem for creationists?
Because creationists acknowledge the fact of speciation. Why some populations would change, and not others, is a dark mystery to them. But Darwin pointed out why natural selection would do this in unchanging environments.
Why would some creatures remain virtually unchanged from those found in the fossil record, while others changed radically?
Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection will prevent evolution for well-adapted populations in unchanging environments, and cause evolution in those where it's changing.
It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason. If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution. Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time. Coelacanths are a good example of this.
Wrong!
No, it's quite right. Where environments have not changed much (such as in deep oceans) we see very little change in many organisms, such as coelacanths. However, they have changed to a degree, even there. As you learned, the species of coelacanths living today are not found in the fossil record.
Even evolutionists acknowledge major changes between the ancient world as they see it, and our existing one.
How do you think environmental conditions in the deep oceans have changed?
These major changes involved the catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs and countless other animals and species including a great many sea creatures.
It's not quite what you've been led to believe.
Phytoplankton-dependent benthic foraminifera on the deep-sea floor, however, did not suffer significant extinction, suggesting that export productivity persisted at a level sufficient to support their populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271934/
These facts alone at the very least completely changed the environment Coelacanths lived in.
As you now see, the depths of the oceans didn't have that kind of extinction event, except where acidification was an issue. However, it could be the reason that modern coelacanths are different than ancient ones.
Do you deny these claims of major changes by evolutionists
See above. You've been misled about what they say.
No one has told this allegedly 350-million-year-old fish that it was supposed to have been extinct for 65 or 70 million years
Barbarian observes:
Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then. They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record. They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.
Even according to your faulty understanding, this means the fish were not extinct but simply continued to change.
Not very much. But then, they were in an environment that didn't change very much.
Or, how do you know fossils of these coelacanths just haven't been found yet?
Seems unlikely. Even in a constant environment, some changes should occur from neutral mutations.
The following is of some significance as well.
https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no
For example, evolutionists once said that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was explained that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land.
No. Coelacanths are related closely to the fish that gave rise to tetrapods, but there is no evidence that coelacanths ever used fins to walk. They use them to swim.
As long as the coelacanth was 'extinct',
There is no such species as "the coelacanth." It's a very large group, comprised of many species, only two of which seem to have survived. Almost every species of coelacanth is now extinct.
But with the discovery of a living coelacanth in 1938 and their subsequent observation, it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming.
Scientists knew this long before living coelacanths were found. Closely related fish, with functional legs, existed long before the modern species. As you just learned, it wasn't coelacanths, but a related group that adapted to walking on the bottom of ponds.
Thus the finding of live coelacanths proved fatal to the idea that such were a 'transitional form' from which amphibians (and subsequently land animals and birds) are descended.
And now you know better. Your source had no more idea of how it worked than you do.
Still haven't seen any evidence for evolution outside of speciation.
: The Barbarian Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 17:43:40
Because creationists acknowledge the fact of speciation. Why some populations would change, and not others, is a dark mystery to them. But Darwin pointed out why natural selection would do this in unchanging environments.
Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection will prevent evolution for well-adapted populations in unchanging environments, and cause evolution in those where it's changing.
It's a puzzle for creationists, but Darwin himself pointed out the reason. If a well-adapted population lives in an unchanging envirionment, then natural selection will greatly slow down, or prevent evolution. Hence, living fossils are found in places where environments have not significantly changed over a long period of time. Coelacanths are a good example of this.
No, it's quite right. Where environments have not changed much (such as in deep oceans) we see very little change in many organisms, such as coelacanths. However, they have changed to a degree, even there. As you learned, the species of coelacanths living today are not found in the fossil record.
How do you think environmental conditions in the deep oceans have changed?
It's not quite what you've been led to believe.
Phytoplankton-dependent benthic foraminifera on the deep-sea floor, however, did not suffer significant extinction, suggesting that export productivity persisted at a level sufficient to support their populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271934/
As you now see, the depths of the oceans didn't have that kind of extinction event, except where acidification was an issue. However, it could be the reason that modern coelacanths are different than ancient ones.
See above. You've been misled about what they say.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, neither of the modern species of coelacanth existed back then. They are of a modern genus unknown in the fossil record. They are still coelacanths, but considerably different than any ancient ones.
Not very much. But then, they were in an environment that didn't change very much.
Seems unlikely. Even in a constant environment, some changes should occur from neutral mutations.
https://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no
No. Coelacanths are related closely to the fish that gave rise to tetrapods, but there is no evidence that coelacanths ever used fins to walk. They use them to swim.
There is no such species as "the coelacanth." It's a very large group, comprised of many species, only two of which seem to have survived. Almost every species of coelacanth is now extinct.
Scientists knew this long before living coelacanths were found. Closely related fish, with functional legs, existed long before the modern species. As you just learned, it wasn't coelacanths, but a related group that adapted to walking on the bottom of ponds.
And now you know better. Your source had no more idea of how it worked than you do.
No one has seen the evolution you espouse, and no one ever will. It is all speculation about the unobservable past, and unending attempts to prove the theory by examples of changes of adaption and or microevolution observable today. Both of which are mechanisms put in place by God at creation by design, according to His foreknowledge of the need of the same in this world which would be subject to major changes over time. Creationists have no problem with species remaining unchanged over time if or when they have no need to do so. You and the other self proclaimed experts of evolution are not God or gods. Nothing is so just because you said it. You have proved nothing, my mind is not changed on the matter, and I do not accordingly know better now by way of any change in my mind simply because you said so. This is a figment of your own imagination just like the theory of evolution, not related to fact at all.
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 00:35:21
Still haven't seen any evidence for evolution outside of speciation.
I suspect you probably have seen evidence other than speciation but either reject it or don't understand it.
: Amo Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:38:04This is a figment of your own imagination just like the theory of evolution, not related to fact at all.
Perhaps the figment is yours, Amo. The fact that you haven't changed your mind means absolutely nothing on the subject one way or the other.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:40:29
I suspect you probably have seen evidence other than speciation but either reject it or don't understand it.
We've all seen and heard a great deal of "evidence" presented from both sides of the issue. We all still need to determine what these proposed "evidences" actually represent, prove, or disprove for ourselves. As is obvious, there is not much agreement concerning "evidence".
http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
An interesting link apposing the Big Bang theory.
: Amo Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:59:06We've all seen and heard a great deal of "evidence" presented from both sides of the issue. We all still need to determine what these proposed "evidences" actually represent, prove, or disprove for ourselves. As is obvious, there is not much agreement concerning "evidence".
And?? Unless you are expert in the field you really can't do what you propose. You can only decide which set of experts you prefer to follow. And that is based upon something other that the existing evidence.
: Amo Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:59:56http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
An interesting link apposing the Big Bang theory.
Here again, unless you are an expert in the field, you really have no credible means of deciding the truth of this video or any other video.
It is, for example, interesting that the article lists Fred Hoyle as an opponent of the big bang. But his opposition does nothing to bolster the Young Earth Creationist view of things. In fact the primary reason that Hoyle opposed the theory was because it implied a beginning for the universe and that, Hoyle feared, was an argument for God. He maintained for most of his career that the universe had no beginning. Toward the end of his career he did actually come to accept the concept of the big bang or to at least accept the concept of a beginning for the physical universe as we now know it.
I find it interesting that RSR has the following in its opening page:
Welcome to Real Science Radio: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams talk about science to debunk evolution and to show the evidence for the creator God including from biology, genetics, geology, history, paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, philosophy, cosmology, math, and physics. The inherent bias is demonstrated immediately by the assumption that the creator God did not and could not create evolution. That of course places extreme limitations upon God's creative ability. It is, so far as I am concerned, a slap in the face of God Himself.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 06:32:48
And?? Unless you are expert in the field you really can't do what you propose. You can only decide which set of experts you prefer to follow. And that is based upon something other that the existing evidence.
So the experts say, so you believe. Of course there is the little problem of so many "experts" disagreeing among themselves. Shall we take a tour of the history of supposed experts, and how many of them and how often they were wrong. Once again, it comes back down to believing either the word of God is expert truth and testimony, or the observations of fallen humanity as the same. We place our faith in whom we trust.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 07:00:30
Here again, unless you are an expert in the field, you really have no credible means of deciding the truth of this video or any other video.
It is, for example, interesting that the article lists Fred Hoyle as an opponent of the big bang. But his opposition does nothing to bolster the Young Earth Creationist view of things. In fact the primary reason that Hoyle opposed the theory was because it implied a beginning for the universe and that, Hoyle feared, was an argument for God. He maintained for most of his career that the universe had no beginning. Toward the end of his career he did actually come to accept the concept of the big bang or to at least accept the concept of a beginning for the physical universe as we now know it.
I find it interesting that RSR has the following in its opening page:
Welcome to Real Science Radio: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams talk about science to debunk evolution and to show the evidence for the creator God including from biology, genetics, geology, history, paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, philosophy, cosmology, math, and physics.
The inherent bias is demonstrated immediately by the assumption that the creator God did not and could not create evolution. That of course places extreme limitations upon God's creative ability. It is, so far as I am concerned, a slap in the face of God Himself.
Thank you for revealing the bias of a supposed expert, and the fact that he changed his mind. You misdirect the basics of the actual debate. It is not about what God could or could not do, it is about whether the bible is a accurate historical account of creation or not. Is the biblical account of God's creation true, or your account of creation true? This is the question for most biblical creationists, not what God could or could not do, rather is the bible accurate or not.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 07:00:30
Here again, unless you are an expert in the field, you really have no credible means of deciding the truth of this video or any other video.
Oh? So those who disagree are dumb? That IS what you are saying.
The inherent bias is demonstrated immediately by the assumption that the creator God did not and could not create evolution. That of course places extreme limitations upon God's creative ability. It is, so far as I am concerned, a slap in the face of God Himself.
what a ridiculous statement.
Of COURSE God could of used evolution.
But, the fact is that He DIDN'T.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 05:40:29
I suspect you probably have seen evidence other than speciation but either reject it or don't understand it.
LOL. So because i disagree with something, it means i dont understand it?
Again, i have not seen ANY evidence.Maybe YOU can show me ONE?
Let me guess, you won't.
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 13:52:36
what a ridiculous statement.
Of COURSE God could of used evolution.
But, the fact is that He DIDN'T.
But the fact is that He DID.
: Amo Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 09:06:26
Thank you for revealing the bias of a supposed expert, and the fact that he changed his mind. You misdirect the basics of the actual debate. It is not about what God could or could not do, it is about whether the bible is a accurate historical account of creation or not. Is the biblical account of God's creation true, or your account of creation true? This is the question for most biblical creationists, not what God could or could not do, rather is the bible accurate or not.
Contrary to your question, of course the biblical account is true. The question is really whether the account is a literal account. Is Revelation an accurate account of the end times? Of course it is. Is it a 100% literal account or a metaphoric account? I will opt for the latter. Is the Genesis account 100% literal or does it, much like Revelation, carry significant metaphoric content? I will opt for the latter. Now if you can prove that is not the case, I will consider it. But I am not holding my breath that you can do that.
: Amo Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 08:59:11
So the experts say, so you believe. Of course there is the little problem of so many "experts" disagreeing among themselves. Shall we take a tour of the history of supposed experts, and how many of them and how often they were wrong. Once again, it comes back down to believing either the word of God is expert truth and testimony, or the observations of fallen humanity as the same. We place our faith in whom we trust.
I have faith in God and trust in His word. I have not much faith in you and little trust in your interpretation of God's word.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 16:09:06
But the fact is that He DID.
prove it.
: Alan Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 21:25:29
Prove that He didn't ::juggle::
Come on, dont be a coward.
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 19:40:04
prove it.
God's general revelation says that He did.
: 4WD Sat Mar 03, 2018 - 16:18:36
I have faith in God and trust in His word. I have not much faith in you and little trust in your interpretation of God's word.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,............................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Very well then, please explain and demonstrate your faith in God's words in the above scriptures accordingly, if you don't mind. What is your interpretation, and why does it not mean just what it says? Thank you.
No one has seen the evolution you espouse
I showed you that evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And such changes are indeed directly observed. I also showed you abundant evidence for common descent, all of which is testable, and has been confirmed. Would you like to see it again?
It is all speculation about the unobservable past,
Sorry, the postmodernist notion that we can't learn about anything we didn't witness, is a foolish error. Would you like to learn why?
Creationists have no problem with species remaining unchanged over time if or when they have no need to do so.
But why it happens or doesn't happen is a deep mystery to creationists. Darwin showed why it happens or doesn't happen, depending on the circumstances.
You and the other self proclaimed experts of evolution are not God or gods.
Nor are you or other creationists God or gods. We merely know more than you do about the way He did his creation. Nothing is so just because you said it. The difference is, we have evidence to show what happened, and you only have a modern revision of the Bible.
You have proved nothing
Science, as you know, proves nothing. It merely gathers enough evidence to make doubt foolish.
my mind is not changed on the matter
Wouldn't expect it to be. But there are others who are considering the issue, and our discussion will help them decide.
and I do not accordingly know better now by way of any change in my mind simply because you said so.
You should always look to the evidence, not authority.
: Amo Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 09:03:23Very well then, please explain and demonstrate your faith in God's words in the above scriptures accordingly, if you don't mind. What is your interpretation, and why does it not mean just what it says? Thank you.
Consider the following to see what God's general revelation says about a day:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=srhot
: 4WD Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 11:52:30
Consider the following to see what God's general revelation says about a day:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=srhot
THE FIRST DAY, THE SECOND DAY. etc.
24 hour days
: Alan Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 08:11:08
Excuse me?
I asked you to prove it.
You could not answer. Instead you tried to divert by asking ME a question and expecting ME to do something YOU were to scared to do, answer a simple question.
I am done with you and your silly games, my friends.
You are not interested in a dialog, you prefer monologues. Making statements. Not backing anything help.
I am done.
God bless.
: 4WD Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 05:19:31
God's general revelation says that He did.
in what way?
Surely this has nothing to do with the word "day", does it?
PS: Thank you for the reply. I enjoy having nice, polite discussions. I appreciate it.
: KiwiChristian Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 12:50:21
in what way?
Surely this has nothing to do with the word "day", does it?
If you had read the article you wouldn't be asking either of those two questions. You would have known the answer to both. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but.......
: KiwiChristian Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 12:46:35
I asked you to prove it.
You could not answer. Instead you tried to divert by asking ME a question and expecting ME to do something YOU were to scared to do, answer a simple question.
I am done with you and your silly games, my friends.
You are not interested in a dialog, you prefer monologues. Making statements. Not backing anything help.
I am done.
God bless.
There was a very simple reason for my reply; we have been over this topic and given you a plethora of accepted evidence, you ignore these replies and continue to ask for "proof". You're just not good at discussions unless YOU see what you want to see.
Perhaps "being done" is in your best interest.
: Alan Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 16:42:23
There was a very simple reason for my reply; we have been over this topic and given you a plethora of accepted evidence, you ignore these replies and continue to ask for "proof". You're just not good at discussions unless YOU see what you want to see.
Perhaps "being done" is in your best interest.
No, i am done with YOU, not with the topic.
If anyone would like to give me one piece of evidence, i am happy to discuss it.
: 4WD Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 11:52:30
Consider the following to see what God's general revelation says about a day:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=srhot
I don't have to consider anything. The context, and issue of God's seventh day Sabbath all through scripture, and history itself all point irrefutably to a 24 hour day, from evening to evening. This single day from evening to evening was an issue which God brought up to Israel many times over to be observed from evening to evening on the seventh literal day. There is no question concerning this for any exercising even the very least bit of common sense. As usual your modification of scripture to suit your own evolutionary faith, creates contradictions and havoc with many other scriptural accounts and testimony.
How do you explain all the scriptural testimony, not to mention history which clearly reveals the setting up of this literal day as God's Sabbath, observed as such by the Jews throughout their entire history, and all the problems they had concerning it, when they would not observe the literal day as God most obviously intended? Please do expound.
: Amo Sun Mar 04, 2018 - 20:54:32I don't have to consider anything.
And there dear friends is the entire crux of the matter.
: 4WD Mon Mar 05, 2018 - 04:51:12
And there dear friends is the entire crux of the matter.
Exactly, the above two posters would rather bury their heads in the sand than to consider even the tiniest shred of evidence that disrupts their personal narrative.
I'm not the one in lala land, completely destroying context, the absolute fact that the seventh day Sabbath is one day from evening to evening as continually referred to in scripture by our Lord Jesus Christ, all the prophets, and apostles, and demonstrated by the Jews observance of the same throughout their history. You want to set all of that aside and say that the days referred to in the fourth commandment are not literal days, so you can claim scripture supports your faith in evolution as apposed to creation as scripture plainly testifies. Then in your twisted minds, you reason that we are the ones who won't take all things into consideration. We are the ones sticking our heads in the sand as apposed to your self proclaimed enlightenment and superior spiritual knowledge. Baloney!
I'm not the one in lala land, completely destroying context, the absolute fact that the seventh day Sabbath is one day from evening to evening
I realize you want to believe it. But the context of Genesis shows that these are not literal days.
as continually referred to in scripture by our Lord Jesus Christ,
He never said they were literal days.
So God wants the Jews to work the land for 6 "long periods of time" and rest for 1 "long period of time" ?
Sorry, that does not wash.
THE first day
THE second day
THE third day
: Amo Mon Mar 05, 2018 - 21:09:50
I'm not the one in lala land, completely destroying context, the absolute fact that the seventh day Sabbath is one day from evening to evening as continually referred to in scripture by our Lord Jesus Christ, all the prophets, and apostles, and demonstrated by the Jews observance of the same throughout their history. You want to set all of that aside and say that the days referred to in the fourth commandment are not literal days, so you can claim scripture supports your faith in evolution as apposed to creation as scripture plainly testifies. Then in your twisted minds, you reason that we are the ones who won't take all things into consideration. We are the ones sticking our heads in the sand as apposed to your self proclaimed enlightenment and superior spiritual knowledge. Baloney!
If you wish to take an absolutely literal approach, then there are a tremendous number of questions that you really need to answer. I will start with one. What is the light that is referred to on the first day, when neither the sun, the moon nor the stars appear until the fourth day? And a second question closely connected is what does evening and morning mean on days one through three since, again, the sun, the moon and the stars do not appear until the fourth day.
Before oxygen....
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/methane-atmosphere-early-earth.htm?utm_campaign=sf&hsw=facebook&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social#mkcpgn=rssnws1
: 4WD Tue Mar 06, 2018 - 05:20:04
What is the light that is referred to on the first day, when neither the sun, the moon nor the stars appear until the fourth day?
God is light. Jesus is the light of the world.
: Alan Thu Mar 08, 2018 - 11:30:43
Before oxygen....
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/methane-atmosphere-early-earth.htm?utm_campaign=sf&hsw=facebook&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social#mkcpgn=rssnws1
LOL. Key word in there is "suggests".
I see ZERO scientific, concrete FACTS in the post.
I see ZERO scientific, concrete FACTS in the post.
You missed the links to the research:
Dating the rise of atmospheric oxygen
A. Bekker, H. D. Holland, P.-L. Wang, D. Rumble III, H. J. Stein, J. L. Hannah, L. L. Coetzee & N. J. Beukes
Nature volume 427, pages 117–120 (08 January 2004)
Abstract
Several lines of geological and geochemical evidence indicate that the level of atmospheric oxygen was extremely low before 2.45 billion years (Gyr) ago, and that it had reached considerable levels by 2.22 Gyr ago. Here we present evidence that the rise of atmospheric oxygen had occurred by 2.32 Gyr ago. We found that syngenetic pyrite is present in organic-rich shales of the 2.32-Gyr-old Rooihoogte and Timeball Hill formations, South Africa. The range of the isotopic composition of sulphur in this pyrite is large and shows no evidence of mass-independent fractionation, indicating that atmospheric oxygen was present at significant levels (that is, greater than 10-5 times that of the present atmospheric level) during the deposition of these units. The presence of rounded pebbles of sideritic iron formation at the base of the Rooihoogte Formation and an extensive and thick ironstone layer consisting of haematitic pisolites and oölites in the upper Timeball Hill Formation indicate that atmospheric oxygen rose significantly, perhaps for the first time, during the deposition of the Rooihoogte and Timeball Hill formations. These units were deposited between what are probably the second and third of the three Palaeoproterozoic glacial events.
...
Earth-Science Reviews
Volume 160, September 2016, Pages 220-239
The evolution of Earth's biogeochemical nitrogen cycle
Author links open overlay panelEva E.StüekenabcMichael A.KippaMatthew C.KoehleraRogerBuicka
Abstract
Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for all life on Earth and it acts as a major control on biological productivity in the modern ocean. Accurate reconstructions of the evolution of life over the course of the last four billion years therefore demand a better understanding of nitrogen bioavailability and speciation through time. The biogeochemical nitrogen cycle has evidently been closely tied to the redox state of the ocean and atmosphere. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the Earth's surface has passed in a non-linear fashion from an anoxic state in the Hadean to an oxic state in the later Phanerozoic. It is therefore likely that the nitrogen cycle has changed markedly over time, with potentially severe implications for the productivity and evolution of the biosphere. Here we compile nitrogen isotope data from the literature and review our current understanding of the evolution of the nitrogen cycle, with particular emphasis on the Precambrian. Combined with recent work on redox conditions, trace metal availability, sulfur and iron cycling on the early Earth, we then use the nitrogen isotope record as a platform to test existing and new hypotheses about biogeochemical pathways that may have controlled nitrogen availability through time. Among other things, we conclude that (a) abiotic nitrogen sources were likely insufficient to sustain a large biosphere, thus favoring an early origin of biological N2 fixation, (b) evidence of nitrate in the Neoarchean and Paleoproterozoic confirm current views of increasing surface oxygen levels at those times, (c) abundant ferrous iron and sulfide in the mid-Precambrian ocean may have affected the speciation and size of the fixed nitrogen reservoir, and (d) nitrate availability alone was not a major driver of eukaryotic evolution.
There's a lot more. If you read the summary, and don't bother checking the cited evidence, you'll never learn anything.
So the experts say, so you believe. Of course there is the little problem of so many "experts" disagreeing among themselves. Shall we take a tour of the history of supposed experts, and how many of them and how often they were wrong.
So they have been wrong in the past. We learn more as we go. For example, Luther and Calvin insisted that the Sun goes around the Earth. Fundamentalists in the United States argued that blacks were inferior to other people. Many of them also argued against evolution. Some still do. And so on. None of this means that there isn't a God. It just means that they put their faith in a particular interpretation of scripture, and were wrong.
Once again, it comes back down to believing either the word of God is expert truth and testimony, or the observations of fallen humanity as the same. We place our faith in whom we trust.
It is important not to confuse one's opinions with God, as you see from the above facts.
: KiwiChristian Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 00:59:49
God is light. Jesus is the light of the world.
So then, given that metaphor, why do you discount the rest of the Genesis account as metaphor also?
: 4WD Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 05:23:28
So then, given that metaphor, why do you discount the rest of the Genesis account as metaphor also?
BOOM!
The eternal thread. LOL
: Johnb Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 05:51:00
The eternal thread. LOL
All of the participants already know I am 100% right and they are 100% wrong but they won't admit it.
: Texas Conservative Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 05:58:49
All of the participants already know I am 100% right and they are 100% wrong but they won't admit it.
We've evolved since your views were presented ::crackup::
There has to be a musical instruments connection here, right?
::intherain::
: Jaime Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 10:44:05
There has to be a musical instruments connection here, right?
::intherain::
Trouble maker rofl
(http://www.piney.com/Molech.Col.Wiki.gif)
Evidently, this particular dinosaur lived at the same time as humans.
(https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/dmania-images/thesaurus-alps385.jpg)
Dino did ::nodding::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU-5jYfnJ2E
: Ginger Rella Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 13:39:04
Dino did ::nodding::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU-5jYfnJ2E
at least they got one thing right.
Man and dinosaurs have always lived together.
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 10, 2018 - 00:08:17Man and dinosaurs have always lived together.
You know that how? Because the KJV says so? rofl
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 10, 2018 - 00:08:17
Man and dinosaurs have always lived together.
Good one! rofl
: Alan Sat Mar 10, 2018 - 06:59:24
Good one! rofl
The dinosaurs still live, but evolved as a spacefaring civilization known as the Voth. They left earth due to climate changes and ended up in the Delta quadrant of the milky way galaxy.
: 4WD Fri Mar 09, 2018 - 05:23:28
So then, given that metaphor, why do you discount the rest of the Genesis account as metaphor also?
It is not just a metaphor, though at times it is applied as such. There is the light which dispels darkness, the light which is truth and dispels ignorance and deception, and the light which destroys and consumes evil and the wicked. God is all of these in a very real and literal sense.
Ps 27:1
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life;
and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness,
to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying,
I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.Those who trust in the Lord, the Light of the world are enlightened by His Spirit and testimony unto salvation. This is not just a metaphor but a spiritual reality and truth which will exist long after this present world is gone. That which is spiritual is real and eternal, that which is temporal is temporary and fading away. The deceptive darkness of the theory of evolution will perish along with the rest of this literal and temporal world when the Lord Jesus Christ returns and destroys the same by the brightness of his coming.
Ps 89:11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them. 12 The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name. 13 Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand. 14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. 15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord,
in the light of thy countenance.Ps 104:1 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Eze 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward,
I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance
of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
Eze 8:1 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord God fell there upon me. 2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward,
fire; and from his loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. 3 And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy.
Eze 10:1 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne. 2 And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight 3 Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court
4 Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory.Hab 3:3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. 4
And his brightness was as the light;[/]u he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. 5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet. 6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.
Matt 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them:
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus:
and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 22:6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon,
suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11
And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
Acts 26:13 At midday, O king,
I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality,
dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
1 Joh 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Light is a visible physical attribute of God representative of the attributes of His character as well. It dispels ignorance and deception and is a consuming fire to sin as well.
Ps 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins
in the light of thy countenance.Ps 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path..................
128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. 129 Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. 130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God. ]/u]14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
God's word is a lamp lighting the path unto salvation, while exposing sin and deception eventually becoming a consuming fire unto the destruction of evil and the wicked. God's light and word expose all darkness and deception and will destroy the same by His literal presence when He returns.
Matt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:Acts 12:6 And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. 7 And, behold,
the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
Exo 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not
that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. 30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold,
the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. 31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. 32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in mount Sinai. 33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. 34 But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. 35
And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
Even the angels of God and Moses himself shine forth with brightness just for being in the presence of the Lord.
Isa 10:16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire. 17
And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day; 18 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standard-bearer fainteth.
Matt 24:27
For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Lk 17:24
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.2 These 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The literal presence of God will be an all consuming fire to sin, sinners, and their world when He returns. All the darkness of sin and deception will be destroyed by the brightness of our Lord's presence. This will include all false religions and theories of human kind, including evolution. All who cling to such, are in danger of destruction when the Lord returns, and the second death in the lake of fire where all unrepentant liars will end up. None of this is a metaphor, it is all very real and will soon be realized.
Isa 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee:
but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. 20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself:
for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. 21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. 22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:
for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved
shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination,
or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
God is light. He has, is, and will continue to be and provide eternal light for His people.
2 Pet 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.The theory of evolution comes to us via the lusts and desires of the flesh of humanity, in the vanity of their pride in concluding they know and understand what transpired over billions of years concerning a slow development of life and eventually humanity which the bible neither depicts or supports in any way shape or form. They reject the destruction of this world by the flood which the scriptures and the above prophecy plainly state as fact, and insist that all things have continued the same according to the slow processes of evolution now for billions of years. If they allow for the destruction of this present world as the bible predicts because of sin, they are being strangely inconsistent having already rejected creation in a week and the destruction of the then world by the flood, I presume because such are to far fetched for them to allow for. If not, then they simply reject the plain testimony of scripture for that which they prefer of their own conjecture. They are fitly represented in the above prophecy, and I believe in grave danger of eternal damnation. May God convict their hearts and minds to place more faith in His written word than the vain speculations of fallen humanity.
: Amo Sat Mar 10, 2018 - 12:14:42It is not just a metaphor, though at times it is applied as such. There is the light which dispels darkness, the light which is truth and dispels ignorance and deception, and the light which destroys and consumes evil and the wicked. God is all of these in a very real and literal sense.
You think God is made of photons. Interesting perspective. Silly, if not downright stupid, but what the hey; if that is what you believe, then so be it.
: 4WD Sat Mar 10, 2018 - 15:29:21
You think God is made of photons. Interesting perspective. Silly, if not downright stupid, but what the hey; if that is what you believe, then so be it.
I believe the testimony of the word of God, which never addresses what He is made of. I would never presume to know or even begin to understand what God is made of. Nor will I ever limit my mind to the very small enclosed box of fallen humanities observations concerning the finality of what anything is. Your the one who apparently thinks He knows what God is made of if the word of God says that God is light, and it does, not me. You have allowed your mind to be so very limited by both the box you are in by God's creation, and the one you have created yourself by thinking to highly of your own and humanities observations, you actually think that God has to be made of photons if He is light. This of course because you presume you already perfectly understand what the light you experience truly is, and that there are no other sources or forms of light apart from what you know, understand, comprehend, and apparently are the master and expert of and concerning. Is this not the exact problem and pride of the sinner in action? What is sin, but to think far more highly of ones self than any ought to in relation to God. Yes, this is where it all began, and where it will all end for all those who refuse their proper place before God.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
: Amo Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 07:11:55I believe the testimony of the word of God, which never addresses what He is made of. I would never presume to know or even begin to understand what God is made of.
But you just did that with your interpretation of Genesis 1:3 when I asked you what was the light that God created on day one when the sun, moon and stars didn't appear until day four. So don't try to give me the "I would never presume to know or even begin to understand what God is made of" bovine scat.
In point of fact, God is not literally physical light. He created physical light, He is not physical light. So again, in your literalist interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, what is the light that is referred to in Genesis 1:3 when there are neither sun, moon nor stars until day four? If the light in Genesis 1:3 is a metaphor, what else in Genesis 1-3 is metaphor?
: 4WD Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 07:50:32
But you just did that with your interpretation of Genesis 1:3 when I asked you what was the light that God created on day one when the sun, moon and stars didn't appear until day four. So don't try to give me the "I would never presume to know or even begin to understand what God is made of" bovine scat.
In point of fact, God is not literally physical light. He created physical light, He is not physical light. So again, in your literalist interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, what is the light that is referred to in Genesis 1:3 when there are neither sun, moon nor stars until day four? If the light in Genesis 1:3 is a metaphor, what else in Genesis 1-3 is metaphor?
Yes, I know, you think you know what God is. You also think you know what I think better than I do. So be it.
: Amo Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 08:42:04Yes, I know, you think you know what God is. You also think you know what I think better than I do. So be it.
Oh my. Amo, I asked you a question concerning Genesis 1:3 that you should be able to answer if your view of the Genesis account of the creation is valid. You answered with a metaphor. But you have repeatedly denied any aspect of metaphorical language in the Genesis account claiming it is all literal. This actually, at least at this point, has nothing to do with what I think about the Genesis account of creation. So which is it -- literal or metaphorical?
If you can't or don't want to answer the question, then fine, don't answer. But please refrain from your ad hominem attack on me because you can't or won't answer the question.
: 4WD Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 08:52:14
Oh my. Amo, I asked you a question concerning Genesis 1:3 that you should be able to answer if your view of the Genesis account of the creation is valid. You answered with a metaphor. But you have repeatedly denied any aspect of metaphorical language in the Genesis account claiming it is all literal. This actually, at least at this point, has nothing to do with what I think about the Genesis account of creation. So which is it -- literal or metaphorical?
If you can't or don't want to answer the question, then fine, don't answer. But please refrain from your ad hominem attack on me because you can't or won't answer the question.
I didn't answer you with what you consider a metaphor, that was someone else. I addressed the fact that the association in scripture between God and light is not just a metaphor. The scriptures state very clearly that God is light, and that there is a brightness often associated with His presence, which brightness is of such power as to destroy this world when He returns. These attributes are not presented as metaphors by scripture. I do not know what the source of light was before the sun and moon were created, scripture does not address this. It does however specifically and conclusively state that God is light and there is a brightness exceeding that of the sun in His presence, which would of course logically account for light at creation before the sun, moon, and stars were created.
Those who believe God's word is above and dictates the confines of real science are not in your box. Your box belongs to those who believe fallen humans observations concerning "science" are above and dictate the interpretation of God's word. This is the main difference between "Christian" creationists and evolutionists. The former interpret science in accordance with God's word, the latter interpret God's word in accordance with their "science".
: Amo Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 09:29:48I addressed the fact that the association in scripture between God and light is not just a metaphor.
No, it is a metaphor.
The former interpret science in accordance with God's word, the latter interpret God's word in accordance with their "science".
Pure nescience -- both of God's word and science.
: 4WD Sun Mar 11, 2018 - 15:00:46
No, it is a metaphor.Pure nescience -- both of God's word and science.
So be it. When He returns one of us will be found true, the other a liar.
: Amo Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 04:31:29So be it. When He returns one of us will be found true, the other a liar.
I don't consider you to be a liar; wrong, but not a liar.
: 4WD Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 05:44:48
I don't consider you to be a liar; wrong, but not a liar.
That is nice, but we should not worry about what we think about each other, we are not the standard of truth that all will be judged by. God's word is truth, and all will decide concerning it, and be judged by it.
: Amo Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 06:17:12That is nice, but we should not worry about what we think about each other, we are not the standard of truth that all will be judged by. God's word is truth, and all will decide concerning it, and be judged by it.
If you think that we will be judged according to whether we perceive the Genesis account of creation as literal or not then you are to be pitied. What one believes about that is not a condition for salvation; and you should know that. But, seemingly, you do not.
: 4WD Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 06:30:39
If you think that we will be judged according to whether we perceive the Genesis account of creation as literal or not then you are to be pitied. What one believes about that is not a condition for salvation; and you should know that. But, seemingly, you do not.
We will stand or fall according to God's word. Our opinions on the matter will mean little to nothing at that time. When He appears, we will know just how insignificant our opinions were and are. Then, we will also learn just how much of God's word He expected us to accept as written, and how much simply didn't matter. Till then humanity will rave on in the freedom God has given us. You certainly are not my God or the final word of anything to me, as I know I am not to you. We will both know that God is the final word when He returns, and receive exactly what we deserve from Him. Praise His holy name.
: Amo Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 06:48:42You certainly are not my God or the final word of anything to me...
Never said I was. And unlike you, I have never even implied it.
: 4WD Fri Mar 16, 2018 - 07:39:18
Never said I was. And unlike you, I have never even implied it.
Same deal. When God returns, we'll find out which one of us assumed prerogatives which are His alone in that which we have professed.
Assumed prerogatives ? ? ?
By the way, you never did give us the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:3 given that the sun, moon and stars do not appear until the fourth day.
: 4WD Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 07:10:51
Assumed prerogatives ? ? ?
By the way, you never did give us the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:3 given that the sun, moon and stars do not appear until the fourth day.
Some things are beyond our understanding or comprehension due to either the limited information provided in scripture, or the fact that we are the created with very limited understanding, not the creator with perfect understanding. Light of course is not a problem, since God Himself is light and there is brightness all around Him. This is a problem for you of course, since you reject the testimony of such in scripture as merely metaphorical, though Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness testimony of the same. While we are at discussing interpretations, I have been asking "Christian evolutionists" to describe the evolutionary process to us as described in the creation account of scripture. It is one thing to say certain scriptures are a metaphor or symbolic, and then explain those metaphors or symbols, it is another to do so simply to disregard what they plainly state. Please explain how the creation account really speaks of the evolutionary process, and how this all relates and ties into the gospel message of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In particular, if death did not come about through sin, but was a natural part of our development and creation, how does that relate to the gospel of Jesus Christ? What is the gospel according to this understanding? Please don't just tell us the creation account and gospel message are not what scripture simply appears to state, tell us what they really are, if in fact you really have understanding and should be listened to. Thank you.
: Amo Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 08:11:42Some things are beyond our understanding or comprehension due to either the limited information provided in scripture, or the fact that we are the created with very limited understanding, not the creator with perfect understanding.
Amo, I do not intend this in any derogatory way, but the fact that you do not understand something does not mean that others may not understand that something quite well.
: AmoLight of course is not a problem, since God Himself is light and there is brightness all around Him.
Obviously this must be what you were referring to above. Some of us know quite well what light is. Apparently you do not. If you did, you wouldn't make such silly statements. As I noted some time ago, light is a physical entity. Since God is not physical, any allusion to God as light must, by definition, by metaphoric.
: AmoThis is a problem for you of course, since you reject the testimony of such in scripture as merely metaphorical, though Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness testimony of the same.
Just where does Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness of that?
: AmoWhile we are at discussing interpretations, I have been asking "Christian evolutionists" to describe the evolutionary process to us as described in the creation account of scripture.
If you would bother to actually read the Genesis account as it is written, you would note that there are only three things that are really spoken of as being created, and here I mean created ex nihilo as the Scripture intends. The first is "heaven and earth", the second is life, and the third is the spirit of man. Everything else is not created but comes from something else, that is, it is made, not created. The question then is in what manner did God "make" the rest of it. You cannot answer that question because God did not specify how He did that.
: AmoIn particular, if death did not come about through sin, but was a natural part of our development and creation, how does that relate to the gospel of Jesus Christ? What is the gospel according to this understanding? Please don't just tell us the creation account and gospel message are not what scripture simply appears to state, tell us what they really are, if in fact you really have understanding and should be listened to. Thank you.
That is a totally separate issue. I would be happy to discuss that with you, but I really do not see how that has any relation one way or the other to the "Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?" I will simply note here that the idea of physical death being the result of Adam's sin comes not from Scripture but rather from the teachings of Augustine and others long after the written word of God was completed; and that quite frankly comes in conjunction with the false teaching of original sin.
Amo, I do not intend this in any derogatory way, but the fact that you do not understand something does not mean that others may not understand that something quite well.
Claiming to know something quite well, does not equal knowing something quite well. You know nothing of what was described in the Genesis creation account. You were not there, and your speculations regarding what transpired are exactly that, speculations of an albeit extremely over confident individual regarding the same. It is pure presumption, to demand that what you know of light and that which you can observe today in relation to the same, the sun, moon, and stars, dictates what God could have or did do then. This is according to the same scoffers testimony and mentality that, "all things remain the same since creation", which the apostles Peter prophesied concerning you and yours.
Obviously this must be what you were referring to above. Some of us know quite well what light is. Apparently you do not. If you did, you wouldn't make such silly statements. As I noted some time ago, light is a physical entity. Since God is not physical, any allusion to God as light must, by definition, by metaphoric.
Yes, I know how very highly you and yours think of yourselves. This to the extent that those who disagree with you, and take some scriptures for just what they say, rather than what you say they say, are silly. Again, this makes nothing so, but within your own self important mind. Those who believe God's word are not silly for dong so above what you demand God's word is saying. You are on very shaky ground sir, declaring to know exactly what God is, and is not, even in contradiction to His word. Again, I think, you think, way to highly of yourself and your own observations which either address things which scripture has not revealed and or contradicts the same.
This is a problem for you of course, since you reject the testimony of such in scripture as merely metaphorical, though Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness testimony of the same.
Just where does Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness of that?
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them:
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3
And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27
For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Lk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. 22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. 24
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly
there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 26:12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king,
I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Eze 1:4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself,
and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire...............................
13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire,
and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures ran and returned as
the appearance of a flash of lightning............................................
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward,
I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain,
so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake................................
8 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord God fell there upon me. 2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward,
as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber.....................................
10 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne. 2 And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. 3 Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court. 4 Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house;
and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory......................................
Hab 3:1 A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth. 2 O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy. 3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. 4
And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband...................................
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.Need I go on?
While we are at discussing interpretations, I have been asking "Christian evolutionists" to describe the evolutionary process to us as described in the creation account of scripture.
If you would bother to actually read the Genesis account as it is written, you would note that there are only three things that are really spoken of as being created, and here I mean created ex nihilo as the Scripture intends. The first is "heaven and earth", the second is life, and the third is the spirit of man. Everything else is not created but comes from something else, that is, it is made, not created. The question then is in what manner did God "make" the rest of it. You cannot answer that question because God did not specify how He did that.
Wrong. None of us of course understand the exactness of the how of creation. Nevertheless, the scriptures testify that it was done in six days which included evening and morning, specified what was created on which day, and established a day of rest on the seventh day commemorating the event. Later the word of God establishes that this creation was in six literal days again, and even establishes a commandment testifying to this that God's people were to observe in commemoration of creation from then on. You deny all of this by your acceptance of the theory of evolution.
In particular, if death did not come about through sin, but was a natural part of our development and creation, how does that relate to the gospel of Jesus Christ? What is the gospel according to this understanding? Please don't just tell us the creation account and gospel message are not what scripture simply appears to state, tell us what they really are, if in fact you really have understanding and should be listened to. Thank you.
That is a totally separate issue. I would be happy to discuss that with you, but I really do not see how that has any relation one way or the other to the "Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?" I will simply note here that the idea of physical death being the result of Adam's sin comes not from Scripture but rather from the teachings of Augustine and others long after the written word of God was completed; and that quite frankly comes in conjunction with the false teaching of original sin.
It is not a separate issue. The bible is not a conglomeration of separated issues and ideas, but a testimony regarding the truth of the fall of humanity in sin against God, and His plan of salvation to solve this problem in Christ Jesus His Son. It is 100 % biblical that sin was and is the cause of death.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.....................................
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 8:6 For to be
carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
: Amo Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 15:06:29
You know nothing of what was described in the Genesis creation account. You were not there, and your speculations regarding what transpired are exactly that, speculations of an albeit extremely over confident individual regarding the same.
And of course you were there so no need for you to speculate. rofl rofl
: AmoIt is pure presumption, to demand that what you know of light and that which you can observe today in relation to the same, the sun, moon, and stars, dictates what God could have or did do then.
The Genesis account is the record of God's creation of the physical universe. Obviously, when it speaks about light, it is speaking about physical light. And I do know something about light in this physical universe. I am not an expert on it, but I know enough about it to understand what it is now and was in the beginning.
: AmoYes, I know how very highly you and yours think of yourselves.
There is none here who thinks more highly of himself than you do Amo. That is patently obvious.
: AmoJust where does Paul himself and others of scripture give eye witness of that?
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Amo, when it says "his face did shine AS the sun" and "his raiment was white AS the light", do you really not understand that those are metaphors not literal descriptions? Sad.
: AmoNeed I go on?
Why bother? Every one of those examples are expressed in figurative language. Something that seems to escape you.
: Amo Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 15:06:29
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.....................................
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Do you not understand that verse 23 refutes your argument completely? There are two contrasting options presented there; they are death and life, neither of which are physical. Eternal life is not being contrasted with physical death. Surely that is apparent to you. The wages of sin is not physical death; the wages of sin is eternal damnation.
: 4WD Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 15:52:28
Do you not understand that verse 23 refutes your argument completely? There are two contrasting options presented there; they are death and life, neither of which are physical. Eternal life is not being contrasted with physical death. Surely that is apparent to you. The wages of sin is not physical death; the wages of sin is eternal damnation.
The verse is right in front of you, you deny it says exactly what it says,"the wages of sin is death" and say the wages of sin is eternal damnation, and tell me the verse refutes what I am saying. That is a pretty serious level of denial brother.
: 4WD Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 15:39:19
And of course you were there so no need for you to speculate. rofl rofl The Genesis account is the record of God's creation of the physical universe. Obviously, when it speaks about light, it is speaking about physical light. And I do know something about light in this physical universe. I am not an expert on it, but I know enough about it to understand what it is now and was in the beginning.There is none here who thinks more highly of himself than you do Amo. That is patently obvious.Amo, when it says "his face did shine AS the sun" and "his raiment was white AS the light", do you really not understand that those are metaphors not literal descriptions? Sad. Why bother? Every one of those examples are expressed in figurative language. Something that seems to escape you.
No I was not there, I just believe what the scriptures plainly state, which you say is not so. Again, the denial is not on my part. I am not adding or subtracting from the word of God which plainly states the world was created in six days. It is there written right in front of your face. You simply declare it does not mean what it plainly says.
You do not know anything about the light and brightness surrounding God, or what exactly the scriptures mean when they state that God is light. Paul is relating his eye witness account of what happened to him, with no suggestion at all of using metaphors or telling a story with a lesson. Your continual witness about scripture is that none of it is true or to be taken literally. It never ends, this is not true or real, that is not true or real, this is not true or real, that is not true or real, on and on this is your continual witness about the scriptures in all we discuss. Yet you profess to be a bible believing Christian. As long I guess as everyone agrees with what you determine the words of scripture are really saying, rather than that which they actually plainly state. You call believing God's word for what it plainly says thinking to highly of one's self, I call constantly saying it means something else other than what it plainly says according to your own understanding thinking to highly of one's self. Again, God will judge between us. We can fully trust in His judgment.
: Amo Sat Mar 17, 2018 - 17:52:40
You do not know anything about the light and brightness surrounding God, or what exactly the scriptures mean when they state that God is light.
What I know is that the Scriptures do not say that God is made of photons.
: AmoYour continual witness about scripture is that none of it is true or to be taken literally.
I have never said any such thing. If that is what you think then you are no better at comprehending what I have written than you are at what God has written.
This past week Stephen Hawking died, no lost to this world for sure. He believed that NEBULOUS CLOUD OF GASES is our CREATOR, Not God~of course he could NOT begin to tell you were those gases came from. Well did our Lord Jesus say,
John 5:46,47~ "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?"
And again,
Luke 16:29-31~ "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
The verses above clearly state that when a man DOUBTS THE WRITINGS OF MOSES (Genesis ) he will evidently also deny the Words of our Lord!
"IN THE BEGINNING, GOD," NOT CHAOS, NOT SOME NEBULOUS CLOUD OF GASES, BUT "IN THE BEGINNING GOD, CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH!" ~ the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the right Book declares ~ " In the beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth." Now either you believe THAT, (i.e. what God's Book says), or you're going to take what some LIAR like Stephen Hawking or Pope Francis says!
In fact here are some quotes from Stephen Hawkins~"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
"The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws," Hawking stated. In an interview published in THE GUARDIAN, Hawking regarded the concept of heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark".
"We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful."
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."~Stephen Hawking.
Now here's what God says –"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." [Genesis 1:1]
THIS IS THE PREMISE AND PREFACE AND FOUNDATION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE! In the BEGINNING, first of all, what? GOD, there's God! And God did what? He created the Heaven and the Earth! So if you don't believe in either one, then you're off the beam. There's a God, and He created the Heaven and the Earth! And this is the BASIC foundation:
If you don't believe THIS, you can't believe ANYTHING!
BECAUSE WHEN YOU DOUBT ONE WORD IN THE BIBLE, YOU'LL SOON DOUBT THE WHOLE BIBLE! Why? Just like it happens in a court of law with the testimony of a witness, when one thing he's said is proven to be a lie, what do they do with his ENTIRE TESTIMONY?–They throw the whole thing out, including the true things he said, because they can't believe it and every word will be in doubt. If he lied about one thing, maybe he lied about another? And that's the way it is with the Bible. If you can't believe EVERY WORD OF IT, then you can't believe every word of it, then you can't believe ANY OF IT!
JESUS SAID, "HAD YE BELIEVED MOSES, YE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED ME... But IF YE BELIEVE NOT his writings, how shall ye believe My Words?" (Jn.5:46,47) Now, what's the first of Moses' writings, upon which all five books are based? GENESIS! "In the BEGINNING...." all about creation, the history of Israel and the beginning of God's dealings with man.
EVOLUTION!–THAT WAS THE DEVIL'S GREATEST LIE and greatest manufacture and most clever piece of teaching, evolution! As ridiculous and idiotic as anything you could possibly study, because it has NO FOUNDATION IN FACT whatsoever; there's no evidence for it, no discovery yet has been made to prove it! As one of its top exponents, Margaret Mead, the famous contemporary anthropologist wrote in her own introduction to her textbook on anthropology: "We as honest scientists must confess that science has yet to discover one single iota (tiny speck) of concrete evidence to prove the evolutionary theory!"
AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT GOD'S GREATEST CREDENTIALS ARE, THE GENUINE PROOF OF HIS AUTHORITY? HIS CREATION!! His glorious creation is a constant testimony of the existence of a divine Designer and Creator, as Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (His Creation), even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse!" And that's why the world wants to reject creation and say it's all just a meaningless, chaotic evolution: Because if the world and its inhabitants are God's creation, then they're His property–and if they're His property, then He's got the right to be Boss–and they don't want God to be Boss!
Therefore "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge," in their education. (Rom.1:28) "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS!" (Rom.1:21,22) They got so smart they could do without God and the Bible, and so they became what?–FOOLS! Absolute fools, who "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. ... Who changed the truth of God into a LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator!" (Rom.1:23,25)
So Why? WHY DID THE DEVIL AND MAN COOK UP THIS RIDICULOUS, IDIOTIC SCHEME OF EVOLUTION? To try to get rid of God! To try get rid of God and the knowledge of God, "as they did not like to retain God in their education." And since they threw God out, and they threw Creation out, and they threw the Bible out, they had to cook up something new! As Prof. L.T. More of the University of Cincinnati confessed, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." They didn't want the truth anymore, so they had to figure out some big lie! And that's why they cooked up Evolution!
And it is no surprise that the Anti Christ Pope Francis along with atheist's like Mr. Hawking is spewing out the same old blasphemy in our day! The Pope says, "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment." In other words, according to this false Christ, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are compatible with the Bible and the Christian's religious belief!
A blind leader of the blind who will lead his followers into the ditch! [Matt 15:1]
: RB Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 09:00:56
This past week Stephen Hawking died, no lost to this world for sure. He believed that NEBULOUS CLOUD OF GASES is our CREATOR, Not God~of course he could NOT begin to tell you were those gases came from. Well did our Lord Jesus say,And again,The verses above clearly state that when a man DOUBTS THE WRITINGS OF MOSES (Genesis ) he will evidently also deny the Words of our Lord!
"IN THE BEGINNING, GOD," NOT CHAOS, NOT SOME NEBULOUS CLOUD OF GASES, BUT "IN THE BEGINNING GOD, CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH!" ~ the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the right Book declares ~ " In the beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth." Now either you believe THAT, (i.e. what God's Book says), or you're going to take what some LIAR like Stephen Hawking or Pope Francis says!
In fact here are some quotes from Stephen Hawkins~"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
"The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws," Hawking stated. In an interview published in THE GUARDIAN, Hawking regarded the concept of heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark".
"We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful."
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."~Stephen Hawking.
Now here's what God says –"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." [Genesis 1:1]
THIS IS THE PREMISE AND PREFACE AND FOUNDATION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE! In the BEGINNING, first of all, what? GOD, there's God! And God did what? He created the Heaven and the Earth! So if you don't believe in either one, then you're off the beam. There's a God, and He created the Heaven and the Earth! And this is the BASIC foundation: If you don't believe THIS, you can't believe ANYTHING!
BECAUSE WHEN YOU DOUBT ONE WORD IN THE BIBLE, YOU'LL SOON DOUBT THE WHOLE BIBLE! Why? Just like it happens in a court of law with the testimony of a witness, when one thing he's said is proven to be a lie, what do they do with his ENTIRE TESTIMONY?–They throw the whole thing out, including the true things he said, because they can't believe it and every word will be in doubt. If he lied about one thing, maybe he lied about another? And that's the way it is with the Bible. If you can't believe EVERY WORD OF IT, then you can't believe every word of it, then you can't believe ANY OF IT!
JESUS SAID, "HAD YE BELIEVED MOSES, YE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED ME... But IF YE BELIEVE NOT his writings, how shall ye believe My Words?" (Jn.5:46,47) Now, what's the first of Moses' writings, upon which all five books are based? GENESIS! "In the BEGINNING...." all about creation, the history of Israel and the beginning of God's dealings with man.
EVOLUTION!–THAT WAS THE DEVIL'S GREATEST LIE and greatest manufacture and most clever piece of teaching, evolution! As ridiculous and idiotic as anything you could possibly study, because it has NO FOUNDATION IN FACT whatsoever; there's no evidence for it, no discovery yet has been made to prove it! As one of its top exponents, Margaret Mead, the famous contemporary anthropologist wrote in her own introduction to her textbook on anthropology: "We as honest scientists must confess that science has yet to discover one single iota (tiny speck) of concrete evidence to prove the evolutionary theory!"
AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT GOD'S GREATEST CREDENTIALS ARE, THE GENUINE PROOF OF HIS AUTHORITY? HIS CREATION!! His glorious creation is a constant testimony of the existence of a divine Designer and Creator, as Romans 1:20 says, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (His Creation), even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse!" And that's why the world wants to reject creation and say it's all just a meaningless, chaotic evolution: Because if the world and its inhabitants are God's creation, then they're His property–and if they're His property, then He's got the right to be Boss–and they don't want God to be Boss!
Therefore "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge," in their education. (Rom.1:28) "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS!" (Rom.1:21,22) They got so smart they could do without God and the Bible, and so they became what?–FOOLS! Absolute fools, who "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. ... Who changed the truth of God into a LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator!" (Rom.1:23,25)
So Why? WHY DID THE DEVIL AND MAN COOK UP THIS RIDICULOUS, IDIOTIC SCHEME OF EVOLUTION? To try to get rid of God! To try get rid of God and the knowledge of God, "as they did not like to retain God in their education." And since they threw God out, and they threw Creation out, and they threw the Bible out, they had to cook up something new! As Prof. L.T. More of the University of Cincinnati confessed, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." They didn't want the truth anymore, so they had to figure out some big lie! And that's why they cooked up Evolution!
And it is no surprise that the Anti Christ Pope Francis along with atheist's like Mr. Hawking is spewing out the same old blasphemy in our day! The Pope says, "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment." In other words, according to this false Christ, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are compatible with the Bible and the Christian's religious belief!
A blind leader of the blind who will lead his followers into the ditch! [Matt 15:1]
Good summary.
: 4WD Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 06:28:34
What I know is that the Scriptures do not say that God is made of photons.I have never said any such thing. If that is what you think then you are no better at comprehending what I have written than you are at what God has written.
I certainly have not said that God is made of photons either. The scriptures say that God is light, I believe them, this does not mean in any way shape or form that I think I know what God is made of. Nor do I think that I or anyone else can know what God is made of according to our extremely limited understanding of light and all other things. I accept that there is much that I do not understand and believe the testimony of scripture regarding God being, emanating, radiating, light and brightness. This because I do not trust that I already understand everything concerning light, or God, or God's creation. As I see it brother, you deny this and other scriptures as literal because you do think you already understand all these things well enough to determine that what God's word says cannot be literal, and therefore does mean what it plainly states. You interpret God's word according your own limited understanding, I presume because you think to highly of the same. If God's word says something that does not fit into your limited understanding, you change it or claim it isn't literal according to that understanding. In so doing you subject God's word to yourself, rather than subjecting yourself to God's word. I say this, so you can understand where I am coming from, my view, in case you haven't already understood this.
You insist that God cannot be light because you already perfectly understand what light is, and or exactly what the scriptures mean when they say God is light. Thus the plain statement that God is light cannot be literal to you. This you do with creation, the flood, I think perhaps the second coming, and other scriptures as well. The scriptures are subject to definition and interpretation according to your limited but apparently highly thought of understanding. Which understanding is heavily influenced by fallen humanities "scientific" observations and speculations derived in large part from many a denier of God Himself and His word. Thus my continued observation, that you have more faith in fallen humanities self confidence, than the words written and recorded by God's prophets, under God's guidance for His people. Please correct me if I am wrong and demonstrate your faith in the word of
God above and beyond the self confidence of human observations called science today.
This is not to mention the many scientists who do believe God's word and examine the evidence around them in light of their testimony rather than the supposed superior observations of fallen humanity a great many of whom reject and deny God altogether.
They, and you reject such as scientists, because yo consider your observations apart from God and His word as superior to those who would be guided in their science by God's word.
Again, where do you really place your faith?
: Amo Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 10:16:20I certainly have not said that God is made of photons either.
Yeah you did. Because that is what light is. And if you claim the Bible when referring to God as light is not a metaphor then you are indeed saying that God is photons.
: 4WD Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 13:35:46
Yeah you did. Because that is what light is. And if you claim the Bible when referring to God as light is not a metaphor then you are indeed saying that God is photons.
Wrong.
"Visible light is carried by photons". CARRIED by photons.
: KiwiChristian Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 21:42:22
Wrong.
"Visible light is carried by photons". CARRIED by photons.
rofl rofl rofl
: 4WD Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 13:35:46
Yeah you did. Because that is what light is. And if you claim the Bible when referring to God as light is not a metaphor then you are indeed saying that God is photons.
Yes I know, from the inside of the box you have created for yourself, it appears that is what I must be saying. I'm not in your box though. Your the one that thinks so highly of fallen humanities observations, that you obviously think we already know everything about light, exactly what and how it is. Until of course the one's your faith is really in, tell you otherwise. They have changed their views about light before, and probably will again. Nonetheless, your faith awaits their leading. You think I am ignorant for thinking God and His creation have much more depth than we can understand, I think you are ignorant for thinking it does not.
2 These 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
: 4WD Sun Mar 18, 2018 - 13:35:46
Yeah you did. Because that is what light is. And if you claim the Bible when referring to God as light is not a metaphor then you are indeed saying that God is photons.
That would only be true if God's attributes are the same as the natural attributes we know in our universe.
We know however that God's attributes are beyond the natural limitations of our universe.
You have no way of knowing how light is distributed by God outside our natural realm, or where it originates from.
The Bible says that God is light. And if scripture means that literally, how would you ever prove He is not light?
: AVZ Tue Mar 20, 2018 - 03:53:38
That would only be true if God's attributes are the same as the natural attributes we know in our universe.
We know however that God's attributes are beyond the natural limitations of our universe.
You have no way of knowing how light is distributed by God outside our natural realm, or where it originates from.
The Bible says that God is light. And if scripture means that literally, how would you ever prove He is not light?
Yes, God CREATED those attributes
"Visible light is carried by photons". CARRIED by photons.
Actually "light" is a subjective perception caused by particles/waves that produce a chemical reaction in our retinas. Radiation is a sort of paradox, sometimes behaving like a stream of particles, and other times behaving as waves.
None of this is about the illumination of God, which is a spiritual phenomenon. Trying to restrict His illumination to the physical universe, just to get scripture to say what you want it to say, is a mistake.
You guys are still arguing, when I already "dropped the mic" pages ago?
: Texas Conservative Wed Mar 21, 2018 - 17:54:30
You guys are still arguing, when I already "dropped the mic" pages ago?
Someone else picked it up, people were still listening.
theory of evolution that things just evolved is fiction
: angelic Wed Mar 21, 2018 - 22:53:55
theory of evolution that things just evolved is fiction
Absolutely. ZERO evidence for it.
: The Barbarian Wed Mar 21, 2018 - 17:40:16
Actually "light" is a subjective perception caused by particles/waves that produce a chemical reaction in our retinas. Radiation is a sort of paradox, sometimes behaving like a stream of particles, and other times behaving as waves.
None of this is about the illumination of God, which is a spiritual phenomenon. Trying to restrict His illumination to the physical universe, just to get scripture to say what you want it to say, is a mistake.
particles OR waves?
: KiwiChristian Fri Mar 23, 2018 - 15:45:21
how can it be both?
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.
: The Barbarian Wed Mar 21, 2018 - 17:40:16
Actually "light" is a subjective perception caused by particles/waves that produce a chemical reaction in our retinas. Radiation is a sort of paradox, sometimes behaving like a stream of particles, and other times behaving as waves.
None of this is about the illumination of God, which is a spiritual phenomenon. Trying to restrict His illumination to the physical universe, just to get scripture to say what you want it to say, is a mistake.
No one has said that, or is saying that. The scriptures very plainly speak of God's light and illumination in both spiritual and literal forms.
: Amo Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 07:22:51
No one has said that, or is saying that. The scriptures very plainly speak of God's light and illumination in both spiritual and literal forms.
What can you possibly mean by God's light in literal forms? Do you mean that God emits photons physically? For that matter what is the meaning of the "spiritual form of light"? What is spiritual light?
: 4WD Fri Mar 23, 2018 - 18:58:18
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.
https://www.livescience.com/7186-enduring-mystery-light.html
The Enduring Mystery of Light
...................................................................................
Albert Einstein deciphered the mystery in 1905 by assuming that particles of light smacked into the electrons, like colliding billiard balls. Only particles from short wavelength light can give a hard enough kick.
Despite this success, the particle theory never replaced the wave theory, since only waves can describe how light interferes with itself when it passes through two slits. We therefore have to live with light being both a particle and a wave — sometimes acting as hard as a rock, sometimes as soft as a ripple.
Physicists rectify light's split personality by thinking in terms of wave packets, which one can imagine as a group of light waves traveling together in a tight, particle-like bundle.
Making a spectacle
Instead of worrying about what light is, it might be better to concentrate on what light does. Light shakes, twists and shoves the charged particles (like electrons) that reside in all materials.
How light works
How light works
These light actions are wavelength-specific. Or to say it another way, each material responds only to a particular set of wavelengths.
Take an apple, for instance. Radio waves and X-rays go essentially straight through it, whereas visible light is stopped by various apple molecules that either absorb the light as heat or reflect it back out.
If the reflected light enters our eyes, it will stimulate color receptors (cones) that are specifically "tuned" to either long, medium or short wavelengths. The brain compares the different cone responses to determine that the apple reflects "red" light.
Here are some other examples of light's specific activities..............................................
All this shows that light wears many different hats in its manipulation of matter. It is perhaps fitting then that light's true identity — wave or particle — is unanswerable.
Fallen humanity makes observations, lists characteristics, actions, reactions, and what have you. Speculates theories concerning the same, and then presumes irrefutable knowledge concerning said theories. This is the pride of the fallen heart, not real substantial irrefutable knowledge and or understanding. This is not to deny real accomplishments and observable facts of "science" but only to place proper limits and perspective upon fallen humanities observations and conclusions regarding the same. We have been wrong many times over and over. Increased knowledge is usually the cause of correcting or modifying our views. This progression of thought and acquired knowledge is necessary to the fallen state of humanity. We have been separated from God and the rest of His creation by sin. Unlike the rest of creation, we cannot be in the literal presence of God and do not therefore see or deal with the concrete realities and absolutes of His being. Thus the friction between faith in God's word, and faith in the very limited observations of fallen humanity and the contradictory conclusions that limited information appears to create in relation to the testimony of God's word. This is not to mention of course, the faulty premise or foundation of much scientific speculation based upon there being no God or creator. Where we place our faith then, is the true source of the greater part of the friction between "science", and authentic Christianity. The latter of course placing greater faith in the testimony of God's word, than the testimony of "scientists".
: Amo Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 08:19:28Fallen humanity makes observations, lists characteristics, actions, reactions, and what have you. Speculates theories concerning the same, and then presumes irrefutable knowledge concerning said theories. This is the pride of the fallen heart, not real substantial irrefutable knowledge and or understanding.
What a load of Bovine Scat. You appear to be totally unenlightened [pun intended] about science at any level and then think you actually speak intelligently about it. Too funny! !
: Alan Wed Mar 21, 2018 - 22:33:00
Someone else picked it up, people were still listening.
From what I am reading, people are talking, but no one is listening.
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 07:30:43
What can you possibly mean by God's light in literal forms? Do you mean that God emits photons physically? For that matter what is the meaning of the "spiritual form of light"? What is spiritual light?
I would not dare to presume to explain God's physical being or that which He chooses to manifest Himself in, to you. I simply do not deny the attributes of that being plainly stated and described in the scriptures. As to spiritual light and darkness, let me reflect some of your own attitude toward others back upon you. If you don't know what spiritual light is in relation especially to spiritual darkness, then you are more scripturally challenged than I thought. I can't be certain, but I would imagine that this is basic knowledge to any true student of scripture. If it isn't then basic teaching and understanding of scripture is even worse than I imagined.
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 08:26:43
What a load of Bovine Scat. You appear to be totally unenlightened [pun intended] about science at any level and then think you actually speak intelligently about it. Too funny! !
Yes, I know, it is hard to be humble when you already know it all. All those silly people who would dare to challenge your superior knowledge and intellect built upon faulty fallen humanities observations. Certainly a laughable load of Bovine Scat. Only inferior beings would demonstrate a lack of trust in fallen humanities divine as it were, observations and conclusions.
: Amo Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 08:32:49I would not dare to presume to explain God's physical being
God's physical being???? rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 08:47:13
God's physical being???? rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Yes we know, you already know exactly what God is, therefore any suggestion at a physical manifestation is ridiculous to your superiorly enlightened mind. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. It is this world, and everything we perceive as real in and of it that is passing away, not the spiritual and eternal truths of scripture which posses a reality we do not yet even comprehend. Humanities confidence in itself does nothing but dwarf our scope and intellect. When the sky is rolled back like a scroll, and we see God and His holy angels as they are, then and only then will we be confronted with reality. We will come to understand that that which is spiritual is very real and filled with substance and literal being. We are what is passing away, we are the puff of smoke.
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?1 Cor 15:35
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest,
thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47
The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
: Amo Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 10:15:38.... that which is spiritual is very real and filled with substance......
So then the spiritual is filled with the physical. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 10:20:53
So then the spiritual is filled with the physical. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Surprise surprise, 4WD doesn't believe any scriptures which describe God or angels with physical attributes, or on occasion describe physical interaction with us, mean at all what they plainly state. At least his testimony is consistent, scripture simply is not true. It is only what he says it is, which is not often if ever described or explained. Therefore, for the most part, the scriptures are simply untrue. 4WD himself is the standard of true scriptural and scientific knowledge and all who disagree with his understanding are laughable simpletons. Tell us 4WD, what exactly are God and the angels, if they have no physical being or traits? If you know exactly what they are not, certainly this suggests you have at least an idea of what they actually are? Surely if you can laugh anyone who suggests a physical spiritual being to scorn, you can explain why such is laughable with real knowledge of what a spiritual being actually is, can't you?
John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 13:50:45
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
An interesting video concerning a basic premise of the theory of evolution.
: Amo Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 14:34:22 .....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?
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.
"Visible light is carried by photons". CARRIED by photons.
You think God is carried by photons? ::pondering::
: 4WD Sat Mar 24, 2018 - 16:39:34
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?
: Amo Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 07:57:12Please 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.
: 4WD Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 08:10:32
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?
: Amo Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 08:17:44So 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.
: 4WD Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 09:13:41
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.
: Amo Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 10:02:17
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.
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 (:- ::pray::
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.
: tooldtocare Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 18:34:51
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 (:- ::pray::
Yes, the evolutionist has FAITH that we all came from a rock or slime 4.6 billion years ago.
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.
: The Barbarian Mon Mar 26, 2018 - 10:32:13And 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.
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.
: The Barbarian Mon Mar 26, 2018 - 10:32:13
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.
: KiwiChristian Mon Mar 26, 2018 - 22:38:40
of COURSE speciation happens.
NO-ONE denies that.
That's just a soft admission to believing evolution.
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.
: Alan Tue Mar 27, 2018 - 09:08:45
That's just a soft admission to believing evolution.
well, if that is your definition of "evolution", fine. I believe it.
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.
: The Barbarian Wed Mar 28, 2018 - 15:29:19
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?
: KiwiChristian Wed Mar 28, 2018 - 22:07:03
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.
: Alan Thu Mar 29, 2018 - 07:40:20
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.
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?
(http://www.historylink.org/Content/Media/Photos/Large/TitleP-Darwin-OnTheOriginOfSpecies-WhitmanFirstEdition1859.jpg)
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 ::announcment::
: The Barbarian Fri Mar 30, 2018 - 17:13:23
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.
(http://www.historylink.org/Content/Media/Photos/Large/TitleP-Darwin-OnTheOriginOfSpecies-WhitmanFirstEdition1859.jpg)
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?
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.
: Amo Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 07:31:53
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.
: 4WD Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 07:44:38
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?
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.
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"?
: KiwiChristian Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 02:45:30
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.
Again, what accredited degrees did darwin have in the field?
There were no accrediting agencies in that time. However, he had been made a member of the Royal Society, which included the most prominent of English scientists, and was also a member of the Geologic Society, and the Linnean Society (made up of the most important biologists in England).
He was one of the most respected and honored scientists in England, and even if he had not discovered the mechanisms of evolution, his other discoveries in geology and biology would have assured his place in science.
: The Barbarian Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 20:07:39
There were no accrediting agencies in that time.
Oh, thats a shame! I will remember that when evolutionists will only accept proof from ACCREDITED scientists.
BTW: WHAT was his doctorate in?
And what is your accreditation that any should give thought to your views?
: 4WD Sun Mar 25, 2018 - 15:21:26
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.
Yes, what a crock. I say again, and I quote what I have already stated (emphasis men) -
I didn't answer you with what you consider a metaphor, that was someone else. I addressed the fact that the association in scripture between God and light is not just a metaphor. The scriptures state very clearly that God is light, and that there is a brightness often associated with His presence, which brightness is of such power as to destroy this world when He returns. These attributes are not presented as metaphors by scripture. I do not know what the source of light was before the sun and moon were created, scripture does not address this. It does however specifically and conclusively state that God is light and there is a brightness exceeding that of the sun in His presence, which would of course logically account for light at creation before the sun, moon, and stars were created.
Those who believe God's word is above and dictates the confines of real science are not in your box. Your box belongs to those who believe fallen humans observations concerning "science" are above and dictate the interpretation of God's word. This is the main difference between "Christian" creationists and evolutionists. The former interpret science in accordance with God's word, the latter interpret God's word in accordance with their "science".
It is of course easier to twist the words of those who are no longer around to respond to those who would do so, concerning scripture of course, than to do so with those present to address such misrepresentations. I am here to address your faulty premise and therefore conclusions regarding that which I have said. The prophets and apostles are not here now, but we will stand before them and God in the future, and answer for all and any misrepresentations we have promulgated. This is a far more weighty matter I believe, than you allow for or consider. God's word is the standard of truth, and all liars will end up in the same place. Of course, I'm quite sure you interpret scripture quite differently than I do on this one, as is the usual case.
: 4WD Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 08:18:54
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.
So, you believe evolution took 6000 years? Let's put a little context around your quote shall we.
2 Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
I can see why you would avoid the context of that which you pulled your quote out of. It condemns your evolutionary views which reject the scriptural testimony of the global flood, and numbers you among the scoffers of these last days. It is addressing biblical prophecy, the destruction of this world when Christ returns, and God's patience in weighting so that as many as possible might be saved. Time is not the same to the everlasting who always has been and always will be. The message is to be patient concerning the fulfillment of God's promise and predictions, because a day and a thousand years make no difference to God, but His word is sure.
Strange how you cannot see the obvious meaning of this, but you can see and know without question that a day described with an evening and a morning in the creation account really represents millions or billions of years. None of which of course can really be supported by these scriptures which, even when taken out of context and applied to creation, would only suggest it took perhaps 6000 years at creation. I think it is as I have suggested. You subject the scriptures to your own understanding, rather than subjecting your own understanding to the scriptures.
: Alan Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 09:41:31
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.
A brilliant man by some, an unenlightened individual making faulty speculations built upon a lack of information and true knowledge by others.
: Amo Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 10:18:25I think it is as I have suggested. You subject the scriptures to your own understanding, rather than subjecting your own understanding to the scriptures.
Says the one who thinks that when God said, "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3), He was talking about Himself. rofl rofl rofl
Barbarian, regarding why Cambridge University had no accreditation when Darwin graduated from the school:
There were no accrediting agencies in that time.
Oh, thats a shame! I will remember that when evolutionists will only accept proof from ACCREDITED scientists.
No problem. We don't ding Owen, for example, even though he graduated from an unaccredited college. For the same reason Darwin doesn't get dinged.
BTW: WHAT was his doctorate in?
Darwin received his BA from Christ's College, Cambridge, but the undergraduate degrees awarded by Oxford and Cambridge weren't then specialized by field. He didn't have a degree "in" zoology, botany, or geology because no British university graduate of that era did.
What Darwin did have was the experience of working with John Stevens Henslow (one of Britain's leading botanists) and Adam Sedgwick (one of Britain's leading geologists). Earlier, at the University of Edinburgh, he'd had a similar relationship (roughly equivalent to that between a grad student and their thesis advisor today) with Robert Grant, one of the leading invertebrate biologists and evolutionary theorists of the 1820s. Five years of fieldwork as ship's naturalist on HMS Beagle (1831-1836) functioned, for Darwin, almost exactly as graduate school would for a science student today: it have him a chance to gather data, perfect his fieldwork skills, and lay the conceptual groundwork for his first major contributions to the field.
Darwin returned to England in 1836 as a major rising star in the geological sciences. Publishing the results of his observations on the voyage also gave him a formidable reputation in botany, zoology, and taxonomy. Anyone familiar with British scientific community in the late 1830s would have seen Darwin as one of its leading members.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Charles-Darwin-have-a-degree-from-any-accredited-university-directly-involved-in-the-sciences-involved-in-the-evolution-of-species
He had most impressive credentials for his time, being a fellow of the Royal Society, the Geological Society, and the Linnean Society. His work on cirripedes established his prominence in biology and his solution to the puzzle of Pacific Atolls assured his reputation as a geologist.
A brilliant man by some,
A brilliant man by any measure. His accomplishments apart from his theory of natural selection would have guaranteed his place in science. It was far from his only great discovery.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 12:53:33
Barbarian, regarding why Cambridge University had no accreditation when Darwin graduated from the school:
There were no accrediting agencies in that time.
No problem. We don't ding Owen, for example, even though he graduated from an unaccredited college. For the same reason Darwin doesn't get dinged.
Darwin received his BA from Christ's College, Cambridge, but the undergraduate degrees awarded by Oxford and Cambridge weren't then specialized by field. He didn't have a degree "in" zoology, botany, or geology because no British university graduate of that era did.
Wow, no credentials in the fields at all?!
You still havent said WHAT his degree was in.
Since you are too scared to, i will. He had a degree in THEOLOGY.
All i am getting at is i find it sadly comical that evolutionists reject certain peoples' information and facts because they do not have an accredited degree in the field.
They are hypocrites.
(Barbarian notes that Darwin's credentials included membership into the three most exclusive and important scientific societies in England)
Wow, no credentials in the fields at all?!
He had all three of the biggest ones available.
You still havent said WHAT his degree was in.
Here's a hint about one reason your plan is a bad one: "What degree does Bill Gates have?"
Since you are too scared to, i will. He had a degree in THEOLOGY.
Yeah. There were no degrees in biology or zoology and so on, at the time. Thought you knew. Mendel didn't have a degree in genetics, either. Mendel, as you might know, founded genetics, having discovered genes. He did have a degree in theology, though. And yes, now that there actually are degrees available in genetics and biology, we expect geneticists and biologists to have them. Go figure.
All i am getting at is i find it sadly comical that evolutionists reject certain peoples' information and facts because they do not have an accredited degree in the field.
No one rejects Mendel or Owen or Huxley or any biologists from that time, for the lack of a degree in biology. Are you beginning to figure out what's wrong with your argument, now?
: The Barbarian Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 05:14:34
(Barbarian notes that Darwin's credentials included membership into the three most exclusive and important scientific societies in England)
He had all three of the biggest ones available.
Here's a hint about one reason your plan is a bad one: "What degree does Bill Gates have?"
Yeah. There were no degrees in biology or zoology and so on, at the time. Thought you knew. Mendel didn't have a degree in genetics, either. Mendel, as you might know, founded genetics, having discovered genes. He did have a degree in theology, though. And yes, now that there actually are degrees available in genetics and biology, we expect geneticists and biologists to have them. Go figure.
No one rejects Mendel or Owen or Huxley or any biologists from that time, for the lack of a degree in biology. Are you beginning to figure out what's wrong with your argument, now?
Not at all.
You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.
: KiwiChristian Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 15:06:51
Not at all.
You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.
It's you that is being purposely argumentative. You've resorted to attacking one of the most brilliant men that ever lived. Your entire argument is utter foolishness.
: KiwiChristian Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 15:06:51You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.
Barbarian argumentative?? He is probably the least argumentative person to post here recently, Considerably less so than you, Kiwi.
Jesus Christ said while standing in the Temple "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three days" He was not referring to the Temple that He was standing in, and He did not explain to them what He meant either, He let them believe whatever they chose to believe even when it was wrong.
Scriptures teach that a thousand years is but one day to God. It also teaches that when a thousand years is passed it is but a yesterday to God. So then When God created the Earth, and there was no Sun yet, what Day do you think God was referring to, when a 24 hour day was not yet created on Earth yet? He was most certainly referring to HIS Day, before the Sun was created on the Earth. Once the Sun was created on the Earth, when Jesus said the morning and evening was the next day, He could have been referring to either His Day (God's Day = 1,000 Earth years) or He might have been referring to at that time, the 24 hour day of the Earth. Here is what i know for sure, What God said He did is absolutely TRUE. When He said "Day" He could have been referring to His Day or Earth's Day. When Jesus said "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three Day" That was an absolutely TRUE statement He made. But because the humans did not understand what He meant by the "Temple" they thought He was speaking something untrue. What Genesis plainly teaches is the Plain Truth, it is our understanding of what a "Day" actually is, is why people of this generation think it is wrong.
^i^
††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††
DiscipleDave
: DiscipleDave Tue Apr 03, 2018 - 15:30:57
Jesus Christ said while standing in the Temple "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three days" He was not referring to the Temple that He was standing in, and He did not explain to them what He meant either, He let them believe whatever they chose to believe even when it was wrong.
Scriptures teach that a thousand years is but one day to God. It also teaches that when a thousand years is passed it is but a yesterday to God. So then When God created the Earth, and there was no Sun yet, what Day do you think God was referring to, when a 24 hour day was not yet created on Earth yet? He was most certainly referring to HIS Day, before the Sun was created on the Earth. Once the Sun was created on the Earth, when Jesus said the morning and evening was the next day, He could have been referring to either His Day (God's Day = 1,000 Earth years) or He might have been referring to at that time, the 24 hour day of the Earth. Here is what i know for sure, What God said He did is absolutely TRUE. When He said "Day" He could have been referring to His Day or Earth's Day. When Jesus said "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three Day" That was an absolutely TRUE statement He made. But because the humans did not understand what He meant by the "Temple" they thought He was speaking something untrue. What Genesis plainly teaches is the Plain Truth, it is our understanding of what a "Day" actually is, is why people of this generation think it is wrong.
^i^
††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††
DiscipleDave
You need to read your Bible more, my friend.
The Bible does NOT say that 1 day is 1000 days to God.
Also, the Bible tells us what He meant by "temple". ie: His body.
: KiwiChristian Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 05:27:58The Bible does NOT say that 1 day is 1000 days to God.
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God. Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God. God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God. Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God. God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.
Precisely so.
: 4WD Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 06:49:30
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God. Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God. God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.
Correct.
Key word is "like".
Reading this at face value CLEARLY means that time has no meaning for God.
That's all.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 09:43:41
Precisely so.
never thought i would say this to you, but...
i agree!
::clappingoverhead::
We're back to the basic fallacy of creationism. Which of the four basic points of Darwinian evolution are incorrect, and what is your evidence for this?
It's you that is being purposely argumentative. You've resorted to attacking one of the most brilliant men that ever lived. Your entire argument is utter foolishness.
Yes, the pedestal you have placed your hero upon is and has been quite obvious. One would think a "Christian" would consider someone like Moses who spent 40 days and nights in the literal presence of God and was referred to as the meekest man on earth, might be considered the same for having done and been so. To the contrary though, apparently 40 days and nights in the literal presence of God being instructed by Him, only amounted to a vague story of creation awaiting the genius of Darwin to eventually explain what it all really meant. This is not to mention Jesus Christ of course who might not count because He was God and man. Nevertheless, He still did not posses enough genius to properly explain humanities true mechanism of origin, thus choosing to await your hero Darwin to accomplish this task.
There is nothing new under the sun. When Adam and Eve chose to listen to and act upon Satan's accusations and supposed knowledge above God's and in contradiction to His testimony, they chose to worship and obey another. That other was their own selves. They considered their ability to understand and choose to be greater than God's command and testimony to the contrary. So to, do all "Christian" evolutionists today. They place their faith in the theories of a man and men in contradiction to the testimony of the word of God, thus worshiping themselves. Moses gave one testimony by instruction of God, Darwin and his followers give another by their own supposed superior knowledge. "Choose you this day whom you will serve" comes to mind. Let us examine some of the "genius" of one of the most brilliant men to ever live.
All emphasis in the following quotes is mine. My comments in blue.
https://www.livescience.com/32051-greatest-scientific-mistakes.html
Oops! The 5 Greatest Scientific Blunders
By Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer | May 16, 2013 07:25am ET
"Darwin was an incredible genius," Livio told LiveScience. "His idea of evolution by natural selection is just mind-boggling — how he came up with something so all-encompassing as that. Plus Darwin really didn't know any mathematics so his theory is entirely non mathematical."
This feat is even more incredible given the notion of heredity (how traits are passed from parents to offspring) that Darwin and scientists of the time subscribed to would have made natural selection impossible. At the time, people thought the characteristics of the mother and the father simply get blended in the offspring just as a can of black paint and a can of white paint blend to create gray when combined.
Darwin's error was in not recognizing the conflict between this idea and his new theory. "If you introduce one black cat into a million white cats, the theory of blending heredity would just dilute the black color away completely. There's no way you would ever end up with black cats," Livio said. "Darwin didn't understand this, he really didn't catch this point."
It wasn't until the concept of Mendelian inheritance was widely accepted and understood in the early 1900s that the puzzle pieces of natural selection fell into place. Gregor Mendel proposed correctly that when traits from two parents come together, rather than blending, one or the other is expressed.
"As it turned out, Mendelian genetics worked precisely to solve this problem. In Mendelian genetics you mix more like you're mixing two decks of cards, where each card retains its identity — not like paint," Livio said.
So mister brilliant was not into math at all. I can certainly relate, but no one is saying I am brilliant, let alone among the most brilliant of men ever. He also made the error of a self contradiction in his theory due to lack of knowledge or understanding regarding heredity. Nevertheless, his theory was widely accepted regardless. The explanation of working out this problem reveals the true function of science based upon faulty theories. First, that which is widely accepted, is presumed to be true. Then that which is widely accepted, is applied to support the favored theory as truth and proof of the same. New knowledge or understanding doesn't work out anything, it simply is. Fallen humanity works out problems with their own faulty theories with new knowledge. They shape and mold it to fit their pet theories whenever and however possible. They then present it as widely accepted irrefutable truth until proved otherwise by more contesting knowledge or understanding. Then the shaping and molding begins again to support pet theories. This is evolutionary science, in theory and function.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/04/breaking-mendels-laws-the-value-of-informative-errors/
The above link about Mendelian genetics reveals just how often evolutionary scientists get it wrong, and even use that which is wrong to correct that which is wrong to make it right. Presumption upon presumption presented as scientific fact until later revealed as otherwise. This is the pride of fallen humanity in self absorbed and exalted action.
https://crev.info/2018/01/book-defrocks-darwin/
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations.......................
Which frauds can you name? Piltdown Man, for instance? Haeckel's embryos? Nebraska Man? You'll be surprised how many others Bergman uncovers. Containing numerous black-and-white illustrations in its 314 pages, this book has 19 chapters detailing case after case of mistakes and outright frauds in the history of Darwinism........................
Although lionized today, Darwin's theory, as this book documents, has caused much harm and, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is far more problematic now than it was in Darwin's time due to the advancement of knowledge in science, especially cell biology and genetics. Darwin himself recognized that his theory had major problems and for this reason he kept revising his bible of evolution until the last edition ended up significantly different than his first edition. The blunders, frauds, and forgeries documented in this book are not surprising in view of the fact that Darwin's major thesis is scientifically wrong.
Evolution is 'true', but the clear trend shows it is going the wrong way. The problem is that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral, i.e., mildly deleterious, and most of the rest are harmful, even lethal. Life is gradually accumulating these deleterious mutations and is facing genetic catastrophe (mutational meltdown), eventually causing extinction. (page 32)
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
The testimony of scripture, and that within which scripture testifies came directly from the mouth of God, is that God created the world is six literal days. The testimony of fallen humanity in Darwin and his followers is otherwise. Choose you this day whom you will believe and therefore serve.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/no-scientists-in-darwins-day-did-not-grasp-the-complexity-of-the-cell-not-even-close/
The above link, quoted below, concerns more knowledge and understanding not available in Darwin's day which would have dramatically effected his theory if not done away with it altogether.
No, Scientists in Darwin's Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close
by Casey Luskin
Evolution News and Views
Recently a reader of ENV wrote to me asking whether it's true that in Darwin's day, scientists thought that the cell had a simple structure. The reader had argued on an Internet forum that back then, scientists vastly underappreciated the complexity of the cell — especially compared to what we know today. Some Darwin-defenders responded to him by claiming that Darwin believed the cell was indeed "complex," and quoted Darwin as saying:
"A cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts."
This quotation of Darwin was then followed by the customary attacks on ID (Intelligent Design) proponents, calling us ignorant, deceitful, or worse, for claiming that scientists of Darwin's era misunderstood and/or dramatically misunderstimated the complexity of the cell. I suppose that somehow this is supposed to bolster the ability of Darwinism to explain the complexity of the cell.
Well, let's take a closer look at that quote from Darwin. He said that the cell is "complex," in part, because it has a "membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus." It's no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time. But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?
The answer is a resounding no. Consider the article that Darwin approvingly cites in that quote, the one by G.H. Lewes in Fortnightly Review. Lewes serves as Darwin's authority for the claim that the cell is "complex," so let's start by looking at what Lewes said about the protoplasm in that very article:
"The simplest form of organic life is not — as commonly stated — a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm, which has been named sarcode by Dujardin, cytode by Haeckel, and germinal matter by Lionel Beale. This protoplasm, although entirely destitute of texture, and consequently destitute of organs, is nevertheless considered to be an Organism, because it manifests the cardinal phenomena of Life: Nutrition, Reproduction, and Contractility. As examples of this simplest organism we may cite Monads, Vibriones, Protamœbæ, and Polythalamia. Few things are more surprising than the vital activity of these organisms, which puzzle naturalists as to whether they should be called plants or animals. All microscopists are familiar with the spectacle of a formless lump of albuminous matter (a Rhizopod), putting forth a process of its body as a temporary arm or leg, or else slowly wrapping itself round a microscopic plant, or morsel of animal substance, thus making its whole body a mouth and a stomach; but these phenomena are as nothing to those described by Cienkowski, who narrates how one Monad fastens on to a plant and sucks the chlorophyl, first from one cell and then from another; while another Monad, unable to make a hole in the cell-wall, thrusts long processes of its body into the opening already made, and drags out the remains of the chlorophyl left there by its predecessor; while a third Monad leads a predatory life, falling upon other Monads who have filled themselves with food. Here, as he says, we stand on the threshold of that dark region where Animal Will begins; and yet there is here no trace of organisation."
So protoplasm — which we now call "cytoplasm" and know to be full of cellular organelles, molecular machines, RNA molecules, enzymes, and numerous other crucial biomolecules — is considered by Darwin's favored authority on the subject to be the "simplest form of organic life," which is a "microscopic lump of jelly-like substance" that is "destitute of texture" and "destitute of organs" with "no trace of organization." This same authority believed a eukaryotic organism like a Rhizopod is little more than a "formless lump of albuminous matter." Not exactly a ringing endorsement or appreciation of the complexity of the cell.
It gets even worse when you read Mr. Lewes's simplistic descriptions of the nucleus or the cell membrane. He writes:
"Now let our glance pass on to the second stage — the Cell. Here we have the first recognised differentiation of structure, in the appearance of a nucleus, or attractive centre, amid the protoplasm. The nucleus is chemically different from the substance which surrounds it; and although perhaps exaggerated importance has been attributed to this nucleus, and mysterious powers have been ascribed to it, yet as an essential constituent of the Cell it commands attention. Indeed, according to the most recent investigations, the definition of a Cell is "a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm." The cell-wall, or delicate investing membrane — that which makes the Cell a closed sac — is no longer to be regarded as a necessary constituent, but only as an accessory."
So the nucleus, which we now know to be the information control center of the cell containing chromosomes and much of the genetic information — billions of bits in some cases — necessary to form an organism, is of "exaggerated importance," having "mysterious powers." Meanwhile, the membrane is called "only as an accessory" that isn't even necessary to the definition of a cell.
So if we take Lewes's definition of a cell as "a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm," and combine it with his prior description of protoplasm, then we see that a cell is a: "structure of "exaggerated importance" with "mysterious powers" surrounded by the "simplest form of organic life," which is a "microscopic lump of jelly-like substance" that is "destitute of texture" and "destitute of organs" with "no trace of organization."
This is what Darwin's favored authority on the complexity of the cell said about the complexity of the cell. Not exactly an anticipation of the cell's true complexity.
Read the Full Article Here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_072871.html
This feat is even more incredible given the notion of heredity (how traits are passed from parents to offspring) that Darwin and scientists of the time subscribed to would have made natural selection impossible. At the time, people thought the characteristics of the mother and the father simply get blended in the offspring just as a can of black paint and a can of white paint blend to create gray when combined.
Darwin's error was in not recognizing the conflict between this idea and his new theory. "If you introduce one black cat into a million white cats, the theory of blending heredity would just dilute the black color away completely. There's no way you would ever end up with black cats," Livio said. "Darwin didn't understand this, he really didn't catch this point."
He did realize this, actually. And he was concerned about it. Ironically, Mendel's paper, if he had read it, would have made it clear why evolution works.
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations.......................
Which frauds can you name? Piltdown Man, for instance?
We can't know if it was planted by a creationist to discredit science, but we do know that an evolutionists debunked it.
Haeckel's embryos?
Creationists are infuriated that modern textbooks just show photographs that demonstrate the same things that Haeckel drew. The real issue is between the idea of recapitulation and the concept of evolutionary development. The former suggests that mammals recapitulate phylogeny, but evo-devo shows that to be false. What happens is developmental genes use the same raw material (branchial arches become ear bones, not gill supports, for example).
Nebraska Man?
A dinosaur expert found tooth oddly worn in a way that made it look like a primate tooth. A mammal expert quickly showed it to be a javelina tooth, with strange wear patterns than looked like that of a primate. And down it went.
Nothing at all like the obvious creationist frauds like the "Paluxy man tracks", which were intentional frauds.
Although lionized today, Darwin's theory, as this book documents, has caused much harm and, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is far more problematic now than it was in Darwin's time due to the advancement of knowledge in science, especially cell biology and genetics.
As noted above, for example, the discover of genes made it clear why natural selection works to make populations more fit. The discover of DNA function explains why the family tree of Linnaeus actually does represent common descent. Observation of living populations shows that natural selection does tend to increase fitness in a population.
Creationism has lost.
I chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing number of Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. I also chose my title to argue that Evangelicals should accept evolution as compatible with faith.
I spent a good portion of last week at a BioLogos meeting. I talked with leading Evangelical pastors, scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Our main goal was to help the Evangelical family realize that the general theory of evolution is not a threat to authentic Christian faith and not a threat to biblical authority.
A full explanation of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and evolution would require at least a book. Here I want to point quickly to five reasons why some of my fellow Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. These are the same reasons I think other Evangelicals should follow their example.
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/evangelicals_accept_evolution
Evolution is 'true', but the clear trend shows it is going the wrong way. The problem is that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral, i.e., mildly deleterious, and most of the rest are harmful, even lethal.
No. Most don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. We all have a few dozen that didn't exist in either parent. And a few are useful. This is why natural selection is so important. Without it, there would be no direction to evolution. But it observably works. The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards occurred in a few decades. A new enzyme system evolved in bacteria within months.
Life is gradually accumulating these deleterious mutations and is facing genetic catastrophe (mutational meltdown), eventually causing extinction. (page 32)
Instead, we see populations becoming more fit and successful in their environments. This is why evolution happens. The change in allele frequencies are those that tend to make survival more likely. And those with those mutations tend to have more offspring. And so the cycle goes.
No, Scientists in Darwin's Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close
Many of those scientists were opposed to evolution. Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution.
What happened?
Well, genetics, mostly. But also biochemistry. As scientists began to look deeper into the cell, it turned out that cells contain a huge amount of data showing evolutionary changes. Would you like to learn about them?
"Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution. "
VERY loaded and baited comment.
It is presupposing that evolution is a fact, when in fact it is pure fiction outside of speciation.
Barbarian observes:
Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution.
VERY loaded and baited comment.
It's just reality. Would you like me to show you how I know?
It is presupposing that evolution is a fact,
It's directly observed. Can't do much better than that.
when in fact it is pure fiction outside of speciation.
It's more than just macroevolution. Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving. But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.
Would you like me to show you some examples of that?
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/charles_darwins_deception.html
The following article may be viewed at the link provided above. If it all be true, learned some things new.
Charles Darwin's Deception
April 22, 2010
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
In his autobiography, Charles Darwin presented himself as a man who was not deeply influenced by the skeptical environment in which he grew up. He claimed, in fact, to have believed the Bible as a Cambridge student and even during his voyage on the Beagle and only gradually to have become a skeptic solely as the product of independent scientific investigation. This is a self-serving myth.
In fact, he never was a Bible believer, never professed Christ as his Saviour, and was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.
Charles' grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a famous skeptic who worshipped "a distant Deity ... the vast Unknown." Erasmus' skepticism was so radical that it even shocked the Unitarian transcendentalist Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who called him "an Atheist." Josiah Wedgewood, Erasmus' close friend and the grandfather of Charles' wife Emma, was a Unitarian who rejected the Deity of Christ and the infallibility of the Bible. Josiah's famous Wedgwood pottery firm honored the infamous Unitarian Joseph Priestly with a medallion featuring his likeness. The two grandfathers bequeathed "a mixture of freethought and radical Christianity to their grandchildren" (Adrian Desmond, Darwin, p. 5). Erasmus published a very popular two-volume work entitled Zoonomia, which presented nearly the same evolutionary theories later popularized by Charles. Erasmus added an evolutionary symbol to the Darwin family' coat of arms, consisting of three scallop shells and the motto E Conchis Omnia ("all things out of shells"). The meaning was that all things had evolved out of the sea.
Charles' father, Robert, was an atheist who adopted E Conchis Omnia as his personal motto.
Charles' elder brother Erasmus, named after their famous grandfather, was a radical skeptic in his own right and his house was a center for "freethinking" in London. Charles loved to spend time there, where "the buzz was radical and Dissenting and 'heterodoxy was the norm'" (Desmond, p. 216). Erasmus' intimate lady friend, the Unitarian Harriet Martineau, did not believe in miracles. She translated the atheist Auguste Comte's pantheistic Positive Philosophy into English. Comte's objective was to replace the religion of God with "the religion of humanity."
As a young medical student at Edinburgh University, Charles was drawn to the most radical skeptics, and they to him. He was elected to the Plinian Society in 1826, at a time when "it had been penetrated by radical students--fiery, freethinking democrats who demanded that science be based on physical causes, not supernatural forces" (Desmond, p. 31). Darwin was invited for the very reason that his grandfather Erasmus was a skeptical evolutionist. Darwin's membership was sponsored by William Browne, who "had no time for souls and saints." Browne hated the Bible and the doctrine of creation, and when Charles Bell proposed that the human face reflects man's moral nature and is an evidence of divine creation, Browne opposed him. Brown stirred up a great controversy when he lectured that "mind and consciousness are not spiritual entities, separate from the body; they are simple spinoffs from the brain activity" (Howard Gruber, Darwin on Man, p. 479). The other student inducted into the Plinian Society with Darwin was the Unitarian-educated William Greg, who was "just as heretical as Browne" and hated creationism.
Darwin's closest friend at Edinburgh was professor Robert Edmond Grant, another member of the Plinian society. He was "an uncompromising evolutionist" who believed that "the origin and evolution of life were due simply to physical and chemical forces, all obeying natural laws" (Desmond, p. 34). A man for whom "nothing was sacred," he was "savagely anti-Christian" (p. 40). Grant loved Erasmus Darwin's Zoonomia. He believed in spontaneous generation of life from "monads" or "elementary living particles" and that the sponge is the parent of higher animals.
Darwin claimed that before the publication of On the Origin of Species he "never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species" (Autobiography, p. 124). That is an amazing lie. His own grandfather believed in the transmutation of species and taught it in his popular book, which Charles had read twice. Jean Baptiste Lamarck had presented transmutation in his very influential 1809 Philosophie Zoologique, which Darwin had read. We have seen that Darwin was deeply exposed to transmutation theories at Edinburgh University. Darwin also read Robert Chambers' 1844 Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which described all of creation evolving from atoms. In London, men such as James Gully were teaching "transmutation" before Darwin published his book. Gully translated Friedrich Tiedemann's "evolutionary treatise on Comparative Physiology" (Desmond, Darwin, p. 219).
Darwin claimed that he came to his evolutionary theories "quite independently" of Humboldt, Lamarck, and others. But even sympathetic biographers such as Gertrude Himmelfarb characterize that as "not entirely candid." Indeed, Darwin had read many books promoting evolutionary ideas very similar to those he later promoted, and it is impossible to form a theory independently--after the fact--of the things you have actually read!
Darwin protested that his book On the Origin of Species was not a product of something that was "in the air" and denied that "men's minds were prepared for it." This is nonsense. Social historian Himmelfarb observes, "It was in the air and men were prepared for it--the public for evolution in general, and the scientific community for some special theory that Darwin was known to be working on" (Darwin and the Darwinian Evolution, p. 240). Unitarianism and German "higher criticism" and humanistic philosophy had greatly weakened biblical faith in the Church of England and in society at large.
I have documented this extensively in The Modern Textual Criticism Hall of Shame, which is available from Way of Life Literature in both print and e-book editions.
In The Darwin Myth, Benjamin Wiker observes,
"His was a close-knit family, and at least all the menfolk took for granted the self-evident truths of Enlightenment skepticism. The skepticism toward Christianity included an evolutionary account directed against the Christian, biblical doctrine of creation. It was part of the comfortable truisms passed on as a heritage. The family heritage allowed Charles to breathe in evolutionary doctrines that had been in the air for over a century ... Charles Darwin was a third generation evolutionist. He carefully read his grandfather's Zoonomia very early on, he studied under the radical evolutionist Robert Grant while in medical school, he worked through the arguments of the French evolutionist Lamarck, and it would be hard to imagine him not discussing evolution with his father and brother around the table and in front of the fire--all this, before he had set foot on the Beagle. ... It means that the theory came before the facts. It was a philosophical and cultural inheritance before Charles Darwin himself went in search of evidence to support it" (pp. 136, 137).
The fact is that Darwin and his book were products of a skeptical environment. Darwin could have believed the Bible, because he had it in his possession and knew men that believed it, but he chose to reject it. There is no evidence that he even tried to find answers to the skeptical questions that he accepted, such as the question of suffering and homology and embryonic similarity and the geological record and the alleged contradictions in the Gospels. The answers were available, but Darwin was not interested in proving the Bible, only in disproving it. This willful skepticism has characterized committed Darwinists ever since and is a fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-6.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 08:05:04
Barbarian observes:
Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution.
It's just reality. Would you like me to show you how I know?
It's directly observed. Can't do much better than that.
It's more than just macroevolution. Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving. But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.
Would you like me to show you some examples of that?
No need. We are quite familiar with evolutions faulty premise, observations, and conclusions based upon the same.
http://www.zephaniah.eu/The%20Shameless%20Fraud%20known%20as%20Darwinian%20Evolution.pdf
Quotes below from link above.
When Science and Magic Combine: The Shameless Fraud known as Darwinian Evolution
by Jeremy James
A Massive Logical Hole
There was one problem in particular that bothered me, a problem which none of the experts seemed willing to address, or even acknowledge:
If millions of chance mutations are needed before one truly beneficial mutation can emerge, then what becomes of those mutations that are not immediately fatal to the organism and are passed on to the next generation? Such deleterious mutations would, from a statistical standpoint, far exceed the number of supposedly beneficial ones. Thus their inevitable entry into the gene pool would result in the progressive deterioration of a species and its eventual demise.
If Dawkins, Gould and the others were right, then the very mechanism that they were using to explain evolution must lead inexorably, not to the creation of a new species, but to the destruction of existing ones!...............................
4. The deliberate trivialisation of complexity
Life cannot develop except in the form of a living cell, the smallest possible self-sustaining, self-reproducing organic unit. The early evolutionists, including Darwin himself, regarded the cell as a fairly simple structure, rather like a tiny protoplasmic clockwork device. This allowed them to employ a concept of 'life' that could be explained in fairly primitive mechanical terms. Of course, an evolutionary explanation is much easier to sustain if the fundamental components of life are defined in a trivial way.
Scientific advances over the past 100 years or so have confirmed that the cell is many millions of times more complex than the simple mechanism that Darwin and his contemporaries had imagined. Even the most primitive cell is now known to contain dozens of types of organelles which move around in a highly structured manner performing an amazing array of intricate functions.
The cell is in reality an immensely complex chemical factory, with hundreds of discrete processes taking place at the same time. Among its many highly sophisticated components are DNA, RNA, cytoplasm, ribosomes, enzymes, mitochondria, proteins, locomotive cilia, and an elaborate system of cytoplasmic membranes, sacs and vesicles.
In addition, the mitochondria are known to possess their own DNA and RNA, which is completely different from the DNA and RNA found elsewhere in the cell. And since they are self-replicating, they are produced only by an earlier generation of mitochondria – the cell nucleus itself cannot produce them. Thus, in order to function properly, a cell must contain an energy-producing organelle which cannot survive outside the cell and which the cell itself cannot produce!
To believe that something this complex could have arisen by chance is disingenuous in the extreme. Statistically it could never happen, no matter how much time was allowed to elapse.
If millions of chance mutations are needed before one truly beneficial mutation can emerge, then what becomes of those mutations that are not immediately fatal to the organism and are passed on to the next generation?
They get passed on to the next generation, with no discernable problems. Most human genes have dozens or hundreds of alleles. Any number greater than four would have to have arrived after Adam and Eve, via mutation. So yes, lots and lots of mutations that are very weakly beneficial, or very weakly harmful, to the point that they neither increase in the population nor are removed from the populations
Such deleterious mutations would, from a statistical standpoint, far exceed the number of supposedly beneficial ones.
The ones that don't actually harm or help an organism are called "neutral mutations." Most of us have several dozen that neither of our parents have. Few of them really do anything as far as selection is concerned. Because they are so close to the useful/harmful boundary, they might be useful in one particular circumstance, and harmful in others. These, as you see, tend to persist because there's no benefit or harm to them. On the other hand, a few mutations are harmful. These tend to be removed from the population by natural selection. A very few are useful, an they tend to increase in the population, because they make it more likely that organisms having them will live long enough to reproduce.
Thus their inevitable entry into the gene pool would result in the progressive deterioration of a species and its eventual demise.
That would happen fairly quickly, if it were not for natural selection. Occasionally, these improvements will lead to a relatively isolated population becoming reproductively separated from the rest of the species. This is how macroevolution occurs.
4. Life cannot develop except in the form of a living cell, the smallest possible self-sustaining, self-reproducing organic unit.
Here, you've confused evolution with the origin of life. Two different things. Darwin merely assumed that God created the first living things. Evolutionary theory merely describes how living populations change.
The really impressive thing is that as we learn more and more about the complexity of the cell, the more we see evidence for the evolution of this complexity. Would you like to see some examples?
In addition, the mitochondria are known to possess their own DNA and RNA, which is completely different from the DNA and RNA found elsewhere in the cell.
Technically, they are separate organisms that are endosymbionts living in eukaryotic cells. They resemble bacteria, and are descendants of bacteria that formed an endosymbiotic relationship with eukaryotic cells. They even have circular DNA like other bacteria, and their cell membranes are bacterial membranes.
Is there any evidence that such endosymbiosis can evolve? Turns out, there is:
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae
Kwang Jeon
Trends in Cell Biology
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 1995, Pages 137-140
The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962892400889667
And since they are self-replicating, they are produced only by an earlier generation of mitochondria – the cell nucleus itself cannot produce them. Thus, in order to function properly, a cell must contain an energy-producing organelle which cannot survive outside the cell and which the cell itself cannot produce!
Nope. For example bacteria and other prokaryotes do fine without them. And many eukaryotes don't have them. They didn't tell you that, um?
To believe that something this complex could have arisen by chance
Would be to ignore Darwin's discovery of natural selection. And as you see, the evidence shows the evolution of mitochondria from free-living bacteria forming a symbiosis with eukaryotes. We even have one directly observed case of this happening.
Before cutting and pasting this stuff, it's a good idea to go check it out for yourself; creationist websites often lie to you. Or, in many cases, they don't know any more about it than you do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_J4ts
Good video expressing the same old same old. Evidence for the flood is abundant, evidence for evolution by way of transitionary development is extremely rare to non existent.
Good video expressing the same old same old. Evidence for the flood is abundant, evidence for evolution by way of transitionary development is extremely rare to non existent.
Let's take a look. Here's young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, on that subject:
Evidences for Darwin's second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise,
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Formshttps://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
It seems that your video has it wrong; at least one of the best-credentialed YE creationists says so. Is there anything else therein that you think might be worth discussing?
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 14, 2018 - 17:18:21
Let's take a look. Here's young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, on that subject:
Evidences for Darwin's second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
It seems that your video has it wrong; at least one of the best-credentialed YE creationists says so. Is there anything else therein that you think might be worth discussing?
Yes there are many disagreements among creationists as there are among evolutionists as well. Since you brought up Kurt Wise though, perhaps you will listen to his following testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ac0_Jeerw
Kurt Wise stating what Darwinists believe which you quoted, does not equate to him believing it as well. Certainly not the same way evolutionists do. The article you quoted from is from 1995. Here is his conclusion.
CONCLUSION
Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.
I and many other creationists, do not agree with the idea that there is good enough scientific proof of transitional forms in the fossil record to support long term slow evolutionary progress. There are nowhere near enough transitional forms in the fossil record to support this theory, and those that have been represented as the same are highly contested even among evolutionists themselves. Presenting your quote as though Kurt Wise accepted it as proof of deep time evolutionary development is deceptive. He does not accept such as truth, according to his own testimony in the video of the link I provided, and is not stating such in the article you quoted either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o
The above link is to a video of Kurt Wise views on fossilization.
I think we are living in the Garden of Eden right now and the USA is the Promised Land.
And I add; this is just my opinion of things
::tippinghat::
The Barbarian said:
It's more than just macroevolution. Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving. But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.
Would you like me to show you some examples of that?
Yes I would, go for it--
But please do not cut and past a long list of writing from others; just cut and past relivant material to support you view and then state why you believe it.
just asking- ::shrug::
: tooldtocare Sun Apr 15, 2018 - 14:05:58
The Barbarian said:
It's more than just macroevolution. Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving. But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.
Would you like me to show you some examples of that?
Yes I would, go for it--
But please do not cut and past a long list of writing from others; just cut and past relivant material to support you view and then state why you believe it.
just asking- ::shrug::
" Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving."
I would ask "barbarian" two questions. 1) define "kind" and 2) prove it. show me one kind of animal "evolving" into a new kind.
But, i can pretty much guarantee that they will not answer the questions.
: KiwiChristian Sun Apr 15, 2018 - 17:33:18
" Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving."
I would ask "barbarian" two questions. 1) define "kind" and 2) prove it. show me one kind of animal "evolving" into a new kind.
But, i can pretty much guarantee that they will not answer the questions.
You're extremely thick, he has given you numerous examples and has invited you to learn how these things occur, you're just far too busy planning your next rebuttal to look objectively at the information given.
(Kurt Wise admits that the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "strong evidence" for macroevolution)
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Yes there are many disagreements among creationists as there are among evolutionists as well. Since you brought up Kurt Wise though, perhaps you will listen to his following testimony.
Wise is an honest creationist. He admits that the evidence supports evolution, not creationism. He honestly declares that he prefers to believe his interpretation of the Bible instead.
Kurt Wise stating what Darwinists believe which you quoted, does not equate to him believing it as well.
Of course he doesn't. He's a creationist. He merely admits the fact that the evidence supports evolution, but he expresses belief that someday, there will be a way to interpret the evidence in a way to support creationism. His admission:
Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model's incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author's mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.
I and many other creationists, do not agree with the idea that there is good enough scientific proof of transitional forms in the fossil record to support long term slow evolutionary progress.
Kurt Wise thinks there is. And he's studied the issue, having a doctorate in paleontology. He just prefers to go with his religious beliefs instead, and his hopes that someday, creationism will have a superior explanation for transitional forms.
There are nowhere near enough transitional forms in the fossil record to support this theory
Wise lists 16 different series of transitionals that he claims do support the theory, all of which were found only after they were predicted by the theory. This is what he means when he says that all of these are "very strong" evidence for macroevolution.
and those that have been represented as the same are highly contested even among evolutionists themselves.
All of the series (not one but several to many transitionals each) are well-accepted by scientists. Some were once controversial, and further evidence confirmed them. Would you like me to show you one of them, and the way they were made clear over time?
Presenting your quote as though Kurt Wise accepted it as proof of deep time evolutionary development is deceptive.
Pretending that I did so, is very deceptive. As you know, I pointed out that Wise asserted that these many transitional series are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. I said nothing about "proof." Dishonesty never serves one's purposes.
He does not accept such as truth,
As I showed you, he accepts it as "strong evidence."
: Alan Sun Apr 15, 2018 - 22:28:05
You're extremely thick
Thank you.
God bless you
: Alan Sun Apr 15, 2018 - 22:28:05You're extremely thick, he has given you numerous examples and has invited you to learn how these things occur, you're just far too busy planning your next rebuttal to look objectively at the information given.
It is not the planning of the next rebuttal that is getting in the way. It is far worse than that. It is a commitment to remain ignorant on the subject, thinking that is the righteous thing to do.
Barbarian observes:
Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving.
I would ask "barbarian" two questions. 1) define "kind"
kind noun [ C ]
us /kɑɪnd/
kind noun [ C ] (TYPE)
a group with similar characteristics, or a particular type:
What kind of thing is it?
They talked about all kinds of stuff.
It's the largest organization of its kind in history.
Where books are concerned, Tyler and Chlo are two of a kind (= similar).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/kind
That's the definition in the English language. I suspect you want me to define "kind" in the sense of the religious doctrine invented by YE creationists. But even they can't define it.
For example, they see all canids as being one kind. But that definition would mean that all primates are one kind, putting humans and apes together. If you guys can't figure out what it means, and you invented it, how do you expect anyone else to do it for you?
show me one kind of animal "evolving" into a new kind.
The Hawthorne maggot fly evolving into the apple maggot fly. A new kind of insect, not seen before. Drosophila miranda, a new kind of dipteran. O. gigas, a new kind of plant.
If you aren't using the word as English speakers do, then give me a testable definition of what you mean by "kind."
I can pretty much guarantee that you will not answer the question.
: 4WD Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 06:53:33
It is not the planning of the next rebuttal that is getting in the way. It is far worse than that. It is a commitment to remain ignorant on the subject, thinking that is the righteous thing to do.
Not at all. If someone can show me the post where "barbarian" answered the questions, i am happy to look at them.
You are all too scared to simply re-state.
Simple fact is, there is zero evidence for any evolution outside of speciation.
: KiwiChristian Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 03:58:16Not at all. If someone can show me the post where "barbarian" answered the questions, i am happy to look at them.
In post after post Barbarian has asked if you, or anyone else, is interested in learning the specifics. I have yet to see anyone take him up on his offer, including you. So I stand by my statement. For the young earth creationist, it is a commitment to remain ignorant on the subject. That is true with respect to all of the sciences, whether physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, geoloogy, etc.
The simple idea that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a farce is such a bizarre claim, the onus should be on those believers to provide the evidence.
I've stated over and over again, you will never find a scientist that is not driven by YEC bias to support the fallacy of a 6000 year old earth.
: Alan Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 06:28:44
The simple idea that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a farce is such a bizarre claim, the onus should be on those believers to provide the evidence.
I've stated over and over again, you will never find a scientist that is not driven by YEC bias to support the fallacy of a 6000 year old earth.
The simple idea that we all came from a "big bang" billions of years ago. That the earth was a hot molten mess, cooled down to a rocky crust, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned it into soup and the soup came alive and here we now are is such a bizarre claim it is laughable.
: KiwiChristian Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 15:15:40
The simple idea that we all came from a "big bang" billions of years ago. That the earth was a hot molten mess, cooled down to a rocky crust, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned it into soup and the soup came alive and here we now are is such a bizarre claim it is laughable.
Fortunately, Christians do not support that idea either.
: KiwiChristian Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 15:15:40
The simple idea that we all came from a "big bang" billions of years ago. That the earth was a hot molten mess, cooled down to a rocky crust, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned it into soup and the soup came alive and here we now are is such a bizarre claim it is laughable.
This post is an example of extreme scientific ignorance.
1. The Big Bang has to do with the moment of the origin of the Universe. It has nothing to do with the primordial times of the Earth.
2. No one says that anything turned into a soup. Sometimes soup is used as a metaphor because minerals and molecules floated around in the ponds, lakes, and oceans.
3. Science cannot (yet) say how non-life became life. But it certainly knows that at one time on the earth there was no life, and then there was life. Creationism teaches the same thing, noting that the change was due to God's intervention.
4. It is ridiculous to say, "And we are now here" when in fact 5 billion years or more have passed since the first life forms existed.
There is no conflict between God creating and what science has found to be true. Science simply tells us more about how God chose to create.
: Open Heart Fri Apr 20, 2018 - 03:49:02
This post is an example of extreme scientific ignorance.
1. The Big Bang has to do with the moment of the origin of the Universe. It has nothing to do with the primordial times of the Earth.
2. No one says that anything turned into a soup. Sometimes soup is used as a metaphor because minerals and molecules floated around in the ponds, lakes, and oceans.
3. Science cannot (yet) say how non-life became life. But it certainly knows that at one time on the earth there was no life, and then there was life. Creationism teaches the same thing, noting that the change was due to God's intervention.
4. It is ridiculous to say, "And we are now here" when in fact 5 billion years or more have passed since the first life forms existed.
There is no conflict between God creating and what science has found to be true. Science simply tells us more about how God chose to create.
Exactly. It is as I have stated several times already and continue to maintain. "Christian" evolutionists do not worship the God of the bible, they worship the God of their own design. Scripture is not their standard, science is their standard. Scripture is the revelation of God to humanity through His chosen servants the prophets, and the Son of God of course. "Christian" evolutionists are those who worship a god defined by the theories expounded by fallen humanity regarding their observations of what is, many of whom deny God altogether. Instead of crafting idols out of wood, stone, or precious metals, they craft their idol out of their supposed superior knowledge which contradicts the testimony of the word of God. Still, this god is made with their own hands and understanding. It is no better than any of the idols of old. They still worship the creature over the creator as those who literally shape idols with there own hands and bow down to them. They both worship idols, one literally, the other intellectually.
Eze 14:1 Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. 2 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 3 Son of man,
these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them? 4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God;
Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; 5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. 6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God;
Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. 7 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me,
and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the Lord will answer him by myself: 8
And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.
Eze 20:13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them;
and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them. 14 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, in whose sight I brought them out. 15 Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands; 16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes,
but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols. 17 Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness. 18 But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments,
nor defile yourselves with their idols: 19 I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; 20
And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. 21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them;
they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. 23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes,
and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Idols are not just statues or carved images one bows down to, they are whatever one erects within their lives which they place above their faith in God and the testimony of His prophets in the Holy Scriptures. This includes scientific or other theories created by fallen humanity. Either the testimony of scripture regarding the creation of this world is true, which is backed up 100% by the above commandment given to God's people as a sign, or the theory of evolution is true. Which also means one or the other is a lie. Either God is extremely liberal with the facts to the point of deception, or evolutionists are.
Ps 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
: Amo Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 08:15:23Exactly. It is as I have stated several times already and continue to maintain. "Christian" evolutionists do not worship the God of the bible, they worship the God of their own design. Scripture is not their standard, science is their standard.
What a load of self-righteous crapola.
: 4WD Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 08:30:56
What a load of self-righteous crapola.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Is the above commandment and conclusive statement self righteous crapola? What does it mean to you?
Even in ancient times, Christians were aware that the "days" of the creation story weren't literal days. There were some who thought so, but most did not. Even St. Augustine, the most respected of ancient theologians, admitted that there was no way to revise them into literal days.
YE creationism is a very recent invention, by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 1900s.
: Amo Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 09:02:13
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Is the above commandment and conclusive statement self righteous crapola? What does it mean to you?
That statement isn't, but yours that I quoted was. With respect to the passage in Exodus, I think it means what it says. What do you think it means? What does it mean that God rested (you might consider Genesis 2:2-3). How long was/is the seventh day that God rested? What did He create on the eighth day? When was/is the eighth day?
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 09:50:13
Even in ancient times, Christians were aware that the "days" of the creation story weren't literal days. There were some who thought so, but most did not. Even St. Augustine, the most respected of ancient theologians, admitted that there was no way to revise them into literal days.
YE creationism is a very recent invention, by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 1900s.
Yea, that's the ticket. No one believed the creation account in Genesis was literal until the Seventh Day Adventist church.
: 4WD Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 09:54:33
That statement isn't, but yours that I quoted was. With respect to the passage in Exodus, I think it means what it says. What do you think it means? What does it mean that God rested (you might consider Genesis 2:2-3). How long was/is the seventh day that God rested? What did He create on the eighth day? When was/is the eighth day?
He ended His work of creating the world, then blessed and sanctified the seventh day as a memorial of the same. After which the seven day week was established as history itself attests. If you don't believe what the bible says, how are you a bible believer? If the creation account means something else than what it says, then what is it? Again, if you don't even know, how can you be a bible believer? If the commandment means what it says, then the world was created in six days. Evolution contradicts that testimony.
Just as I thought. Can't or won't answer the questions. I'll ask again. This time, at least try to answer. What does it mean that God rested (you might consider Genesis 2:2-3). How long was/is the seventh day that God rested? What did He create on the eighth day? When was/is the eighth day?
Yea, that's the ticket. No one believed the creation account in Genesis was literal until the Seventh Day Adventist church.
Maybe some thought it was a literal history. But they have always been a minority among Christians. The work in which Augustine showed why it could not be a literal history, translates to "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." That is, "what it actually says."
And what it actually says is that the days were not 24 hour days, but rather categories of creation.
That has always been the general consensus of Christianity. However, it's not an essential belief of the Church, and you don't become less Christian if you don't accept the way He created things. It's not not a salvation issue, and hence, YE creationists are no less likely to be saved than other Christians.
: 4WD Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 15:17:26
Just as I thought. Can't or won't answer the questions. I'll ask again. This time, at least try to answer. What does it mean that God rested (you might consider Genesis 2:2-3). How long was/is the seventh day that God rested? What did He create on the eighth day? When was/is the eighth day?
I should have thought it was obvious what He rested from. The seventh day was of course the same length as the other six days including evening and morning. There was no mention of any eighth day, because the eighth day would be the first day of the new week, which week ended every Sabbath on the seventh day. The number seven being the number of completeness. Thus the seven day weekly cycle which God's people and most of the world I might add, have observed. There is no mention of God creating something on an eighth day, or an eighth day at all. Please do therefore enlighten us all concerning the same. Show the scriptures you are referring to that address the same. Surely you are asking these questions with a certain point in mind, so what is that point?
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 16:22:27
Maybe some thought it was a literal history. But they have always been a minority among Christians. The work in which Augustine showed why it could not be a literal history, translates to "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." That is, "what it actually says."
And what it actually says is that the days were not 24 hour days, but rather categories of creation.
That has always been the general consensus of Christianity. However, it's not an essential belief of the Church, and you don't become less Christian if you don't accept the way He created things. It's not not a salvation issue, and hence, YE creationists are no less likely to be saved than other Christians.
We are of course all entitled to our opinions. If disregarding as much of the bible as one has to, in order to believe in evolution rather than the biblical creation account, is not a salvific issue, then I'm not sure anything else could be either. Do you now suggest that the bible writers themselves did not believe in the six day creation? Can you provide us with the numerous quotes from history there must apparently be, showing that few if any even Christians ever believed in the six day creation account of scripture? Please do.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 16:22:27
Maybe some thought it was a literal history. But they have always been a minority among Christians. The work in which Augustine showed why it could not be a literal history, translates to "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." That is, "what it actually says."
And what it actually says is that the days were not 24 hour days, but rather categories of creation.
That has always been the general consensus of Christianity. However, it's not an essential belief of the Church, and you don't become less Christian if you don't accept the way He created things. It's not not a salvation issue, and hence, YE creationists are no less likely to be saved than other Christians.
Apparently, not everyone agrees with your assertion.
https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/
The Early Church on Creation
What did the early church believe about creation?
In its first 16 centuries the church held to a young earth. Earth was several thousand years old, was created quickly in six 24-hour days, and was later submerged under a worldwide flood............................
The Church Fathers (AD 100–600) were theologians after the apostles. Based on Scripture, they opposed naturalistic theories of origins. Some, including Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217), Origen (c. 185–254), and Augustine (c. 354–430), interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically. To them, the six days were a symbolic presentation of God's creation in one instant.
Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross in the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, claim Augustine as a precedent for interpreting the Bible's reference to "six days" as a symbol for eons of creative activity (known as the framework hypothesis).1 But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.
Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old....................
Conclusion
The traditional young-earth Christian concept of creation stands against progressive creationists, who argue that the earth was created in stages over eons of time. The Greek and Latin Fathers and the Reformers stood on biblical authority against old-earth theorists of their times. Eastern Orthodoxy based its views on the Greek Fathers and so also held to traditional biblical young-earth creationism.2
Not until the Enlightenment did professing Christians begin to reinterpret Genesis to fit with alleged scientific proofs of an old earth. But Genesis meant what it meant when it was written, and its meaning was discerned by Jesus and the apostles—and the church that they founded. So we must return to a plain and straightforward understanding of the Genesis account and believe God created quickly, several thousand years ago, in six 24-hour days.
More on creation in historical Church.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43
Creation and the Church Fathers
Recently I was rather shocked to read the following words from two leading British evangelical Christians:
"There is, unfortunately, a common misconception that Christians all used to take it [Creation] fairly literally, and that in a post-Copernican and Darwinian age some of us are now trying to cobble together some kind of non-literal understanding. This is simply not true. At no stage in the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis 1 – 3 has there been a 'purely literal' understanding."1
According to these two scholars the traditional and orthodox understanding throughout church history has been that the days of Creation are symbolic. But is this really true? This article is an attempt to put the record straight by referring to the earliest writings of Christian leaders. These leaders were known as the Church Fathers and they wrote to encourage believers, mainly during the period of AD 96 – 430 (Clement to Augustine). Of the 24 Church Fathers that I examined, 14 clearly accepted the literal days of Creation; 9 did not mention their thoughts on this subject, and only one held to a clearly figurative belief, which he imbued from the Jewish liberal philosopher, Philo, who had, in turn, been greatly influenced by the pagan Greeks......................................
https://creation.com/creation-millennium-church-fathers
Creationism and millennialism among the Church Fathers
by Andrew Sibley
Some theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists have used the beliefs of the Church Fathers to challenge modern young-earth creationism. In this paper I intend to examine the beliefs of the leading Church Fathers relating to the Genesis creation account in detail and highlight what they believed and why. From this study it is evident that there was in fact a strong link between acceptance of six-day creation and a 6,000-year millennial scheme in order to try and determine when Christ would return. Although there are some differences with modern creationism, a degree of harmony in approaches to biblical hermeneutics is evident. The Patristic use of the Septuagint, however, meant their timeframe was in error, but later acceptance of the Masoretic Text rekindled millennial thinking.
It is, I believe, important to acknowledge that many of the Church Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old and that they read the Genesis creation account both literally and symbolically. I will highlight this with reference to works by St Basil (Hexaemeron) and St Augustine (The City of God, De Genesi ad Litteram), as well as consideration of the thoughts of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Theophilus, among others.1 These Christian leaders lived in the first few centuries AD, and taught in defence of the Christian Church, often against pagan critics. The relevance for us today is that some theistic critics of a young earth claim that this position is a recent development in Christian theology, and that the Church Fathers would have been critical of it as well. Denis Alexander quotes from Augustine to try and make out that the creationist position is in fact an embarrassment to the gospel.2 Roger Forster and Paul Marston also address the beliefs of the Church Fathers, but downplay the significance of their literal reading of Genesis, and emphasize instead the allegorical aspects, and where they do address literal readings it is to gently mock.3 They then seek to break the link between modern young-earth creationism and Christian tradition, and despite the fact that they acknowledge that young-earth creationism was present in the late nineteenth century Victoria Institute, they assert that
"Young-earthism is a clear and radical break [from mainstream Evangelicalism] differing in its whole approach to the issues—and its modern roots are in Seventh Day Adventism not in later nineteenth century Evangelicalism nor in early Fundamentalism."4
Roger Forster is of course a well-respected Christian leader of the London-based Ichthus Christian Fellowship and linked churches, but this is an unnecessarily strong, and I would argue unsustainable, statement against fellow evangelicals.5 Instead, the truth is more complex than these comments suggests, and as we will see below, the beliefs of the Church Fathers are in tune with modern creationism and evangelical thought, even though differing in some places.
It is clear from a close reading of the Church Fathers that the widely held belief of the church in the first few centuries after Christ was that the creation occurred less than 6,000 years prior to their time of writing; at least it seems to have been the majority opinion among the church leaders. This belief was also seemingly tied in with an understanding of the timing of the Second Coming of Christ and millennial reign; a pressing question for the early church. The millennial scheme symbolically linked six days of creation with 6,000 years of Earth history, with the final millennium rest seen as foreshadowed by the seventh day of rest in the creation account. Looking at the beliefs of some of the Church Fathers in relation to creation, and also in relation to the millennium, what becomes apparent is that a belief in a young Earth was widely held in the early Church by the Church Fathers. This undermines claims that such belief is a recent phenomenon, or is not in tune with traditional Christian theology........................
https://creation.com/hugh-ross-church-fathers
Hugh Ross Church Fathers
Old earther admits "poor quality" research by other old-earthers
Published: 13 July 2017 (GMT+10)
From time to time we receive emails from devotees of Dr Hugh Ross, probably today's leading advocate of old-earth creationism. Please note that we take no pleasure in highlighting the following matters. But for the sake of integrity in the creation movement (the brand of creation promoted by Ross is called 'Progressive Creationism'), we need to address challenges by devotees of Ross as if he is a source of infallible wisdom. These same devotees don't seem to be aware that, although on the surface Ross's claims might seem credible, they are often littered with inaccuracies and just plain bad science. Moreover, they seem to be unaware (or unwilling to read) the extensive refutations that are now available, which Ross himself refuses to deal with (see for example More false claims by Hugh Ross: Leading progressive creationist's (non-) response to Refuting Compromise). For example, in challenging our biblical stance on the age of the earth, Ross fan, Steve E. of the USA, writes:...............................
Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies:
Dear Mr E.
Thank you for writing to CMI.
I'd like to advise against using anything from Hugh Ross's website, because he is theologically errant and scientifically unreliable, as amply documented in my book Refuting Compromise. In Ch. 3, I make plenty of use of Robert Bradshaw's website.
I also pointed out that Ross claimed on his website:
Many of the early church fathers and other Biblical scholars interpreted the creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The list of such proponents includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, apologist, and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few.[Omitted the references his original; hyperlinks added]4
He made similar claims in his books Creation and Time (1994) and The Genesis Question (1998). However, it's well documented and easy to show that all these writers were actually YECs (young-earth creationists), and most believed in 24-hour creation days, as can be seen from the hyperlinks added to Ross's quote, and also documented in my book Refuting Compromise.
But some time after my book first came out in 2004, Ross quietly removed that claim from his website. So, the next (3rd) edition was already planned to have the following addition, which actually quotes from the very article you recommended!1..............................
: Amo Sat Apr 21, 2018 - 18:08:55
I should have thought it was obvious what He rested from. The seventh day was of course the same length as the other six days including evening and morning. There was no mention of any eighth day, because the eighth day would be the first day of the new week, which week ended every Sabbath on the seventh day. The number seven being the number of completeness. Thus the seven day weekly cycle which God's people and most of the world I might add, have observed. There is no mention of God creating something on an eighth day, or an eighth day at all. Please do therefore enlighten us all concerning the same. Show the scriptures you are referring to that address the same. Surely you are asking these questions with a certain point in mind, so what is that point?
If God rested from all his work of creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2), and the seventh day was only 24 hours, then on the eighth day He must have ceased from His rest and began creating again. What did He create after that 24 hour rest?
Apparently, not everyone agrees with your assertion.
"Answers in Genesis" lost all credibility with me when they got caught faking quotes from two astronomers to make it look as though they believed things they did not. Would you like to learn about that?
St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, pointed out that it was impossible to revise the creation story in Genesis into a literal history. YE creationism is a modern rejection of that view, but it's no older than the 20th century.
: 4WD Sun Apr 22, 2018 - 06:36:00
If God rested from all his work of creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2), and the seventh day was only 24 hours, then on the eighth day He must have ceased from His rest and began creating again. What did He create after that 24 hour rest?
Gen 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
When you finish something, it is done. You do not have to continue working on what is finished. When I finish one job or project, it is done and I move on to the next. After creation God spent time with His creation among many other things as well I am sure, He is God after all. I don't see how speculating about what God did or did not do after the creation account which is not recorded for us, reveals anything about creation itself. If it does, please enlighten us.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 22, 2018 - 07:50:21
"Answers in Genesis" lost all credibility with me when they got caught faking quotes from two astronomers to make it look as though they believed things they did not. Would you like to learn about that?
St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, pointed out that it was impossible to revise the creation story in Genesis into a literal history. YE creationism is a modern rejection of that view, but it's no older than the 20th century.
OK, we'll disregard the testimony from Answers in Genesis. I have the writings of the Church Fathers, I will go directly to the source and see what they have said. I'll share my findings as they develop.
Sure, I would like to learn the truth about any attempting to deceive. Many of the lies and deceptions of evolutionists have been exposed on this very thread, certainly creationists should be held to the same standard.
St. Augustine, one man 1500 years ago. Not exactly an extensive list proving your point. Perhaps you missed the following in one of the quotes I supplied -
Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross in the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, claim Augustine as a precedent for interpreting the Bible's reference to "six days" as a symbol for eons of creative activity (known as the framework hypothesis).1 But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.
I guess I will have to examine Augustine's words myself as well. If the above is true, then of course your assertion is false.
: Amo Sun Apr 22, 2018 - 08:28:51I don't see how speculating about what God did or did not do after the creation account which is not recorded for us, reveals anything about creation itself. If it does, please enlighten us.
The whole rest of the Bible is about what God did and did not do after the creation. In fact He is still resting from all His work of creating.
: 4WD Sun Apr 22, 2018 - 12:59:44
The whole rest of the Bible is about what God did and did not do after the creation. In fact He is still resting from all His work of creating.
Some Christians argue that we are still in the sixth day, that the day of rest fr God comes when this world is over.
Sure, I would like to learn the truth about any attempting to deceive.
AiG member Jon Safarti, on that website faked a quote from two astronomers, by editing out part of their statement:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/10/deception-of-trueorigin.html
Many of the lies and deceptions of evolutionists have been exposed on this very thread,
So far, no one has shown us any.
[quote[St. Augustine, one man 1500 years ago. [/quote]
The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers. His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom. And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.
Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross in the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, claim Augustine as a precedent for interpreting the Bible's reference to "six days" as a symbol for eons of creative activity (known as the framework hypothesis).
Augustine did believe the world was instantaneously created, but argued that it was created with the potential for many things, which then appeared over time.
Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.
Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf
But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively
It seems pretty consistent with Augustine and other theologians of the time.
and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.
The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was. However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.
I guess I will have to examine Augustine's words myself as well. If the above is true, then of course your assertion is false.
As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation. A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.
We are of course all entitled to our opinions. If disregarding as much of the bible as one has to, in order to believe in evolution rather than the biblical creation account, is not a salvific issue,
As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution. Genesis takes no stand on that at all. So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible. The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.
then I'm not sure anything else could be either. Do you now suggest that the bible writers themselves did not believe in the six day creation?
I know the Author of Genesis did not believe in six literal days of creation. After all, He actually was the Creator.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 24, 2018 - 02:55:17The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief .......
How does it do that?
Barbarian observes:
The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief
How does it do that?
In Genesis, God says that living things were produced by previously created things. Hence not from nothing.
The things, but not life, were produced from "stuff" already created. The Hebrew word "bara" is universally used only with God as the active agent and always implies "from nothing". From Vine's OT:
Create
bara' (H1254), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen_1:1; cf. Gen_2:3; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.
Bara' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as `asah, "to make" (Isa_41:20; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7, Isa_45:12; Amo_4:13), yatsar, "to form" (Isa_43:1, Isa_43:7; Isa_45:7; Amo_4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa_45:18 : "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara'] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [`asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara'] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara' (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.
Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa_42:5; Isa_45:18; Isa_65:17); man (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47; Isa_43:7; Isa_45:12); Israel (Isa_43:1; Mal_2:10); a new thing (Jer_31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa_4:5); north and south (Psa_89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa_45:8); speech (Isa_57:19); darkness (Isa_45:7); wind (Amo_4:13); and a new heart (Psa_51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.
Especially striking is the use of bara' in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [`asah] the earth, and created [bara'] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa_45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa_44:12-20; Isa_46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (Isa_43:16-21; Isa_65:17-25).
Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara' is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory.
qanah (H7069), "to get, acquire, earn." These basic meanings are dominant in the Old Testament, but certain poetic passages have long suggested that this verb means "create." In Gen_14:19, Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker [KJV, "possessor"] of heaven and earth" (RSV). Gen_14:22 repeats this divine epithet. Deu_32:6 makes this meaning certain in that qanah is parallel to `asah, "to make": "Is he not your father, who created (qanah) you, who made (`asah) you and established (kun) you?" (RSV). Psa_78:54; Psa_139:13; and Pro_8:22-23 also suggest the idea of creation.
The cognate languages usually follow the Hebrew in the basic meaning of "to get, acquire." Ugaritic, however, attests the meaning "create." In fact, qny is the primary Ugaritic term to express creation. The close relationship of Hebrew and Ugaritic and the contextual meaning of qanah as "create" in the Old Testament passages cited above argue for the use of qanah as a synonym for "create" along with bara', `asah, and yatsar.
`asah (H6213), "to create, do, make." This verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for "create" only about 60 times. There is nothing in- herent in the word to indicate the nature of the creation involved; it is only when `asah is parallel to bara' that we can be sure that it implies creation.
Unfortunately, the word is not attested in cognate languages contemporary with the Old Testament, and its etymology is unclear. Because `asah describes the most common of human (and divine) activities, it is ill-suited to communicate theological meaning—except where it is used with bara' or other terms whose technical meanings are clearly established.
The most instructive occurrences of `asah are in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen_1:1 uses the verb bara' to introduce the Creation account, and Gen_1:7 speaks of its detailed execution: "And God made [`asah] the firmament...." Whether or not the firmament was made of existing material cannot be determined, since the passage uses only `asah. But it is clear that the verb expresses creation, since it is used in that context and follows the technical word bara'. The same can be said of other verses in Genesis: Gen_1:16 (the lights of heaven); Gen_1:25, Gen_3:1 (the animals); Gen_1:31; Gen_2:2 (all his work); and Gen_6:6 (man). In Gen_1:26-27, however, `asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness....So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, Gen_2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, Gen_5:1 equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in Gen_2:3 refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."
It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.
God created all the "stuff" (Gen 1:1). He created life in the sea (Gen 1:21). He created the spirit of man Gen 1:27; 2:7).
Of course He created all things. It's just that somethings were created from nothing and other things were created from existing things.
You were created by God. You body was created from existing things, and your soul was created ex nihilo.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 24, 2018 - 09:47:43
Of course He created all things. It's just that somethings were created from nothing and other things were created from existing things.
You were created by God. You body was created from existing things, and your soul was created ex nihilo.
Yes, but a body made from existing, non-living things does not "come to life". Created, by definition, requires a creator. If it were the case that life just happened to non-living stuff, then it would be happening still and it isn't. In fact there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that life ever has "just happened" to non-living stuff.
For what it is worth, I tend to agree with you on "evolution" generally applied following God's "creation". But I do believe that life is a creation.
Yes, but a body made from existing, non-living things does not "come to life". Created, by definition, requires a creator.
Of course. As St. Augustine pointed out, God made the world unformed and all things proceeded from that initial creation according to His will. Those things are His creation, just as the things created ex nihilo are His creation.
If it were the case that life just happened to non-living stuff, then it would be happening still and it isn't.
To get that, judging from the fossil record, you'd need about a billion years and a completely sterile environment. Today, energy-rich compounds are still being formed naturally, but they are quickly utilized by existing life.
In fact there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that life ever has "just happened" to non-living stuff.
Creation didn't "just happen." God willed life to come from the earth, and created it to do so.
For what it is worth, I tend to agree with you on "evolution" generally applied following God's "creation". But I do believe that life is a creation.
God creates all things, even those things He creates by natural means. Nature is the way He does most things in this world.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 24, 2018 - 12:36:09God creates all things, even those things He creates by natural means. Nature is the way He does most things in this world.
No, such a view trivializes the concept of creation. God does not create each of us physically. He created the process of procreation and that is the process by which we exist. Physically, we are born not created. We must not fail to distinguish between those two processes.
No, such a view trivializes the concept of creation. God does not create each of us physically. He created the process of procreation and that is the process by which we exist. Physically, we are born not created. We must not fail to distinguish between those two processes.
I don't see reproduction as a trivial thing. I'm in awe of a Creator who made nature so as to do His will in producing new life.
But I see your distinction.
: The Barbarian Tue Apr 24, 2018 - 20:58:57I don't see reproduction as a trivial thing. I'm in awe of a Creator who made nature so as to do His will in producing new life.
But I see your distinction.
Nor do I see reproduction as a trivial thing. I am happy that you see the distinction, because it is a very important distinction. A baby born with physical or mental defects is not God's creation. God does not create bad people, or anything else bad. It is important to understand that.
I know quite a few people with congenital defects. Most of them are happy to be here. Like Pauls thorn, I think there's a purpose to all of that.
I could be wrong, but God is fair, even if He isn't fair as we would judge it.
: The Barbarian Wed Apr 25, 2018 - 16:02:00I know quite a few people with congenital defects.
Do you really believe that God causes those congenital defects?? Please tell me you do not believe that.
: BarbarianI could be wrong, but God is fair, even if He isn't fair as we would judge it.
If God is not fair as we would judge it, where do we get our judgment of what is fair? From the secular world? I don't think so.
Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason. So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose. We all have them.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
God does not create bad people. A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.
: The Barbarian Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 07:41:44
Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason. So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose. We all have them.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
God does not create bad people. A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.
I don't agree with your theology here but I also don't believe it has any impact on the creation/evolution process.
: The Barbarian Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 07:41:44
Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason. So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose. We all have them.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
God does not create bad people. A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.
God's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us. From God's [Jesus'] first encounter with Paul [Saul] on the road to Damascus throughout his life, God dealt with Paul in a very special and separate way from the rest of us. That of course is true for many of the prominent men and women in the Bible, whether Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc. And even there, we are not told that God "created" them for a special purpose; but rather that He selected them for a special purpose and dealt with them individually for that special purpose. In all such cases those were exceptions, not the rule.
And for what it is worth, I did not say nor even suggest that a person with Down's syndrome or any other birth defect is a bad person. But no matter how you look at it, birth defects can not be considered a good thing for the person with the defect. Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen. Unless of course you believe in Calvin's determinism.
The aliens are here and low and behold they be US!!!
::tippinghat::
: The Barbarian Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 07:41:44
Yes, I believe that God creates each of us, with our limitations and abilities for a specific reason. So he gave St. Paul a thorn in his side for a purpose. We all have them.
2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. [8] For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. [9] And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
God does not create bad people. A person with Down's syndrome is not a bad person.
I can't agree. God created the cells in our bodies to function in certain ways. Any malfunction is not God's doing; it is the result of sin in the world. Whether the result is Down's syndrome, any other physical or intellectual disability, or cancer, the cells did not function as God designed.
God is not the cause, but He is the One to turn to for help.
: tooldtocare Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 09:17:41
The aliens are here and low and behold they be US!!!
::tippinghat::
rofl
: 4WD Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 08:29:12
Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen.
Exactly! And, the person born with the birth defect is not to blame either.
I know that should go without saying, but I just realized that as soon as somebody reads me saying that sin is to blame, then I may be credited with accusing the victim of the birth defect of being a sinner. Nope.
And here is me believing that we are not marionettes, and that God is NOT pushing the buttons for the outcome of humanity.
God's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us. From God's [Jesus'] first encounter with Paul [Saul] on the road to Damascus throughout his life, God dealt with Paul in a very special and separate way from the rest of us.
Paul would be the first to argue against that. He points out that the infirmity given to him was specifically to keep him from being puffed up.
That of course is true for many of the prominent men and women in the Bible, whether Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc. And even there, we are not told that God "created" them for a special purpose;
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
And for what it is worth, I did not say nor even suggest that a person with Down's syndrome or any other birth defect is a bad person. But no matter how you look at it, birth defects can not be considered a good thing for the person with the defect.
Was the defect Paul had, a good thing?
People don't have defects because God can't prevent them from happening.
Bad things happen to good people all the time, and you cannot accuse God as the cause of those bad things that happen.
God's answer is:
2 Corinthians 12:6 For even if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I would be telling the truth, but I refrain from this so that no one may regard me beyond what he sees in me or what he hears from me, 7 even because of the extraordinary character of the revelations. Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me—so that I would not become arrogant. 8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me. 10 Therefore I am content with weaknesses, with insults, with troubles, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Unless of course you believe in Calvin's determinism.
We can't determine what God will give us. We can only determine what we will do with it.
And here is me believing that we are not marionettes, and that God is NOT pushing the buttons for the outcome of humanity.
Not everyone gets the same gifts. We don't all start in the same place, but what we do with what we have is what determines the outcome. This is not predestination; it's the opposite of predestination.
John 9:1And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth: [2] And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? [3] Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I said
: 4WDGod's dealing with the Apostle Paul should not be taken as the rule or the example of God's dealing with us.
You responded with
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 27, 2018 - 17:42:53Paul would be the first to argue against that.
and then proceeded to give examples of God's dealing with Paul. Nothing you posted contradicts what I said.
: The Barbarian Fri Apr 27, 2018 - 17:42:53People don't have defects because God can't prevent them from happening.
And people don't have defects because God caused them to happen.
: soterion Thu Apr 26, 2018 - 09:47:47I know that should go without saying, but I just realized that as soon as somebody reads me saying that sin is to blame, then I may be credited with accusing the victim of the birth defect of being a sinner. Nope.
There are many times, for example a drug addicted mother who gives birth to a drug addicted child, a child's birth defect is the result of the mother's sinful living. But that is not what we are talking about here. Just as often the child's birth defect is not a result of anyone's sin, including the parents or even Adam in the Garden.
Barb -
AiG member Jon Safarti, on that website faked a quote from two astronomers, by editing out part of their statement:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/10/deception-of-trueorigin.html
Thanks. I'll examine the issue.
Barb -
So far, no one has shown us any.
Well, I don't want to come right out and call you a liar, so I guess I will say that simply denying or ignoring that which has been posted regarding the same refutes nothing of the same. Numerous instances have been provided on this thread, you obviously choose to ignore them. Here is an idea, why didn't you or don't you address and refute them, rather than simply deny their existence?
Barb regarding Augustine -
The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers. His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom. And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.
It is of course your opinion that Augustine was the most important ancient Christian philosopher. You have no idea what everyone thought concerning Augustine until the 20th century. Such statements reveal just how highly you consider your own unverified opinions. I suppose I should take a look at the same to check on another of your blanket statements which exude presumptuous self confidence. I will shortly begin to address your similar blanket statement declaring that hardly anyone believed in six day creation until recently. Which is verifiably false. Nor did Augustine believe or support your theory of evolution and or deep time concerning the creation account.
Barb -
Augustine did believe the world was instantaneously created, but argued that it was created with the potential for many things, which then appeared over time.
Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.
Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf
He seems somewhat confused to me, as you do as well. Things developing over time, and things coming about instantaneously are to very separate and apposed ideas. Creationists not only allow for, but insist according to literal bible interpretation, that things do and have changed over time. Augustine makes no mention above about deep time required for evolution, to the contrary, he speaks only of days. Which again is self contradictory if he believed creation was instantaneous. Which was it, instantaneous, or development over time. The two are contradictory.
Amo - But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively
Barb - It seems pretty consistent with Augustine and other theologians of the time.
No Barbarian, it is not consistent to present instant creation and deep time evolution as one and the same. This is blatantly obvious to anyone examining the issue without bias. who are the other theologians of the times? Here we are, quote them and let us examine what they have said as well, thank you.
Barb -
The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was. However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.
Provide the quote to that effect please Barbarian, regarding the same in relation to supposed science. Its not that I don't trust you, I just don't trust you. Scientists do not know know how old the world is today either, they presume they do according to their faulty observations and speculations regarding the same. Their and your self confidence does not, never has, and never will equal truth. Having no idea of the processes, development, and details involved in creation, it is impossible for humanity to look back and determine the age of this earth. Only by denying creation altogether, can one even begin to speculate such upon the base of said faulty premise.
This is where you stand. Any unbiased Christian scientist would have to admit that without any knowledge of the conditions before, at, and immediately after creation, it is impossible to accurately determine the age of this earth. The bible itself reveals none of these conditions, and does reveal that the original condition of this planet was completely altered by a global flood. Which of course you deny, because it screws up your pet theory.
Barb -
As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation. A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.
No Barbarian I do not see. I know you think so very very highly of your own observations and opinions, but you do not and cannot know what I see, understand, or agree and or disagree with. I'm sorry, such is beyond you, your "science" cannot know the heart and mind of others though you may presume such all you like.
Barb -
As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution. Genesis takes no stand on that at all. So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible. The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.
No Barbarian, again, I do not see anything because you say I do. I see someone who thinks more highly of their own views than those clearly presented by the prophets of God. YE creationism is totally consistent with what the book of Genesis plainly states accepting in the minds of those who place their own thoughts and ideas above the same.
Barb -
I know the Author of Genesis did not believe in six literal days of creation. After all, He actually was the Creator.
Yes, I know you think you know how God created the world better than the prophets whom He Himself picked to reveal such, and inspired what they wrote. You know the mind of God on this one, don't you Barbarian?You know that HE didn't mean what He told His prophets to write, He needed to wait for you and yours to reveal the real truth. The new prophets of God. In your own mind in any case.
The thing is, God has left the record of how He did it, there is no use disputing the evidence.
The following quotes are from various "Fathers" of the church as some see it. They are presented as refutation against Barbarian's blanket statement that hardly anyone believed in the biblical literal six day creation account until the last century or so. Just the first of many to come if time and opportunity provide. All emphasis is mine.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS - [A.D. 100.]
CHAPTER 15
THE FALSE AND THE TRUE SABBATH
Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - [A.D. 120-202.]
BOOK 5
CHAPTER 28
THE DISTINCTION TO BE MADE BETWEEN THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED. THE FUTURE APOSTASY IN THE TIME OF ANTI-CHRIST, AND THE END OF THE WORLD
3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA - [A.D. 153-193-217]
THE STROMATA,
OR MISCELLANIES
BOOK 6
CHAPTER 16 GNOSTIC EXPOSITION OF THE DECALOGUE
Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven, and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which — that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence — teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months — in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity.
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS - [A.D. 185-230-254]
BOOK 4
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN OF RUFINUS
CHAPTER 1
12. This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of Scripture where this "body," as we termed it, i.e., this inferential historical sense, is not always found, as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that which we termed "soul" or "spirit" can only be understood. And this, I think, is indicated in the Gospels, where there are said to be placed, according to the manner of purification among the Jews, six water-vessels, containing two or three firkins apiece; by which, as I have said, the language of the Gospel seems to indicate, with respect to those who are secretly called by the apostle "Jews," that they are purified by the word of Scripture, — receiving indeed sometimes two firkins, i.e., the understanding of the "soul" or "spirit," according to our statement as above; sometimes even three (firkins), when in the reading (of Scripture) the "bodily" sense, which is the "historical," may be preserved for the edification of the people. Now six water-vessels are appropriately spoken of, with regard to those persons who are purified by being placed in the world; for we read that in six days — which is the perfect number — this world and all things in it were finished. How great, then, is the utility of this first "historical" sense which we have mentioned, is attested by the multitude of all believers, who believe with adequate faith and simplicity, and does not need much argument, because it is openly manifest to all; whereas of that sense which we have called above the "soul," as it were, of Scripture,
THE EXTANT WORKS AND FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS - [A.D. 170-236]
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. D. F. SALMOND]
PART 1 — EXEGETICAL
ON DANIEL
2
THE INTERPRETATION BY HIPPOLYTUS, (BISHOP) OF ROME, OF THE VISIONS OF DANIEL AND NEBUCHADNEZZAR,
TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION
And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet come."
ARCHELAUS - (A.D. 277.)
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. D. F. SALMOND, M.A.]
THE ACTS OF THE DISPUTATION
WITH THE HERESIARCH MANES.
31. Listen also to what I have to say on this other expression which has been adduced, viz., "Christ, who redeemed us from the curse of the law." My view of this passage is that Moses, that illustrious servant of God, committed to those who wished to have the right vision, an emblematic law, and also a real law. Thus, to take an example, after God had made the world, and all things that are in it, in the space of six days, He rested on the seventh day from all His works by which statement I do not mean to affirm that He rested because He was fatigued, but that He did so as having brought to its perfection every creature which He had resolved to introduce. And yet in the sequel it, the new law, says: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Does that mean, then, that He is still making heaven, or sun, or man, or animals, or trees, or any such thing? Nay; but the meaning is, that when these visible objects were perfectly finished, He rested from that kind of work; while, however, He still continues to work at objects invisible with an inward mode of action, and saves men.
METHODIUS - (A.D. 260-312).
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A.,
VICAR OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN, TAUNTON.]
DISCOURSE 7
CHAPTER 5
THE SIXTY QUEENS: WHY SIXTY, AND WHY QUEENS; THE EXCELLENCE OF THE SAINTS OF THE FIRST AGE
In addition to these matters, there is this also to be considered, so that nothing may escape us of things which are necessary, why He said that the queens were sixty, and the concubines eighty, and the virgins so numerous as not to be counted from their multitude, but the spouse one. And first let us speak of the sixty. I imagine that He named under the sixty queens, those who had pleased God from the first-made man in succession to Noah, for this reason, since these had no need of precepts and laws for their salvation, the creation of the world in six days being still recent. For they remembered that in six days God formed the creation, and those things which were made in paradise; and how man, receiving a command not to touch the tree of knowledge, ran aground, the author of evil having led him astray.
DISCOURSE 8
CHAPTER 8
THE FAITHFUL IN BAPTISM MALES, CONFIGURED TO CHRIST; THE SAINTS THEMSELVES CHRISTS
Moreover, it is evident that the creation of the world was accomplished in harmony with this number, God having made heaven and earth, and the things which are in them, in six days; the word of creative power containing the number six, in accordance with which the Trinity is the maker of bodies. For length, and breadth, and depth make up a body. And the number six is composed of triangles. On these subjects, however, there is not sufficient time at present to enlarge with accuracy, for fear of letting the main subject slip, in considering that which is secondary.
DISCOURSE 9
TUSIANE
CHAPTER 1
For since in six days God made the heaven and the earth, and finished the whole world, and rested on the seventh day from all His works which He had made, and blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, so by a figure in the seventh month, when the fruits of the earth have been gathered in, we are commanded to keep the feast to the Lord, which signifies that, when this world shall be terminated at the seventh thousand years, when God shall have completed the world, He shall rejoice in us.
LACTANTIUS - (A.D. 260-330.)
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. WILLIAM FLETCHER, D.D.]
THE DIVINE INSTITUTES
BOOK 7 OF A HAPPY LIFE
CHAPTER 13 OF THE SOUL, AND THE TESTIMONIES CONCERNING ITS ETERNITY
But we, whom the Holy Scriptures instruct to the knowledge of the truth, know the beginning and the end of the world, respecting which we will now speak in the end of our work, since we have explained respecting the beginning in the second book. Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place, and the condition of human affairs be remodeled for the better, the proof of which must first be related, that the matter itself may be plain. God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He had rested from His works. But this is the Sabbath-day, which in the language of the Hebrews received its name from the number, whence the seventh is the legitimate and complete number. For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up; and there are seven stars which do not set, and seven luminaries which are called planets, whose differing and unequal movements are believed to cause the varieties of circumstances and times. Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says "In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years, while wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labors which the world now has long endured. But how that will come to pass I will explain in its order. We have often said that lesser things and things of small importance are figures and previous shadowings forth of great things; as this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great clay to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits.
VICTORINUS
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, PH.D.]
ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it... with a blessing. For this reason, therefore, because in the septenary number of days both heavenly and earthly things are ordered, in place of the beginning I will consider of this seventh day after the principle of all matters pertaining to the number of seven; and as far as I shall be able, I will endeavor to portray the day of the divine power to that consummation.
ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
BY JOHN PATRICK, D.D.
BOOK 12
36
CONCERNING THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE SAVIOR
"Now after six days," according to Matthew and Mark, "He taketh with him Peter and James and John his brother, and leads them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them." Now, also, let it be granted, before the exposition that occurs to us in relation to these things, that this took place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me, that those who are led up by Jesus into the high mountain, and are deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, are not without purpose led up six days after the discourses previously spoken. For since in six days — the perfect number — the whole world, — this perfect work of art, — was made, on this account I think that he who transcends all the things of the world by beholding no longer the things which are seen, for they are temporal, but already the things which not seen, and only the things which are not seen, because that they are eternal, is represented in the words, "After six days days Jesus took up with Him" certain persons.
As is obvious from the above quotes, and many others to come if time and opportunity will provide, Barbarian's claim that hardly anyone believed in the literal six day creation until the last century or so is a false one.
: Alan Sat Apr 28, 2018 - 10:04:03
The thing is, God has left the record of how He did it, there is no use disputing the evidence.
The thing is, God has left the testimony of His chosen prophets recording the time frame of our creation, there is no use disputing the testimony He gave them. Unless of course you view that testimony as false. God has told us that the bible is His recorded testimony regarding truth. Where does the bible ever say to figure out for yourself the truth of creation by examining and theorizing about the world around you according to your own understanding? It does not. Nor can any theorizing produce infallible truth without any knowledge of the conditions, whys, wherefores, and hows of creation. All such is pure speculation, and only the prideful sinful heart would present their speculations as absolute truth, in contradiction to the plain testimony of scripture.
: Amo Sat Apr 28, 2018 - 10:36:14The thing is, God has left the testimony of His chosen prophets recording the time frame of our creation, there is no use disputing the testimony He gave them. Unless of course you view that testimony as false.
Not disputing the testimony God gave His chosen prophets; rather it is your interpretation of that testimony that I view as false. And that is in light of all the evidence God placed here for our benefit.
: 4WD Sat Apr 28, 2018 - 13:01:20
Not disputing the testimony God gave His chosen prophets; rather it is your interpretation of that testimony that I view as false. And that is in light of all the evidence God placed here for our benefit.
Yes, you dispute what the scriptures plainly state. There is no question concerning what they plainly state. The burden to explain what they mean is not upon those who accept what they plainly state as the truth, but rather upon those who insist they do not. So, I ask once again as I have many times over, what do they mean according to your interpretation? Do you have an interpretation, or just insist they do not mean what they plainly state? I need no interpretation because I believe they mean just what they say. You are saying they do not, please expound.
The same evidence is here for all to see. You take that evidence and say the bible's description of creation cannot be literal according to the faulty knowledge of fallen humanity. Knowledge which is built upon many a presumption. Evidence built upon presumptions, is nothing more than presumption.
Barbarian, regarding evidence against evolution:
So far, no one has shown us any.
Well, I don't want to come right out and call you a liar, so I guess I will say that simply denying or ignoring that which has been posted regarding the same refutes nothing of the same.
So far, everything proposed has been shot down. Which one was not addressed and adequately refuted?
If you feel I missed one, bring it up here, and we'll take a look.
Babarian regarding St. Augustine:
The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers. His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom. And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.
It is of course your opinion that Augustine was the most important ancient Christian philosopher.
In fact, he is highly regarded by all three major branches of Christianity.
You have no idea what everyone thought concerning Augustine until the 20th century.
No, that's wrong. For example Calvin thought very highly of him, and cited him in much of his theology. But it wasn't just Calvin:
Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an "Augustinian Renaissance". Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.
The wide dissemination of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, due to the extraordinary success of the printing press, was a powerful contributor to the religious renewal of the sixteenth century. Remarkable among these Church Fathers, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) has been regarded as the most consequential patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation interest in the study of Augustinian theology dramatically increased. There was an "Augustinian Renaissance".[1]
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/
Such statements reveal just how highly you consider your own unverified opinions.
See above. Anyone can use a library or check historical sources on the net.
I suppose I should take a look at the same to check on another of your blanket statements which exude presumptuous self confidence. I will shortly begin to address your similar blanket statement declaring that hardly anyone believed in six day creation until recently.
There were some, but it was never Christian orthodoxy. And of course, YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century. Prior to that, almost all creationists were OE. It was the form of creationism that was presented at the scopes trial, and the form of creationism advocated by 19th century fundamentalist theologians like Spurgeon.
Which is verifiably false. Nor did Augustine believe or support your theory of evolution
His idea of evolution was for God to have created the potentiality of living things to appear, which then developed over time as conditions became right. That's not bad, considering how little information had.
and or deep time concerning the creation account.
He acknowledge an instantaneous creation, from which other things emerged over time. He had no idea how much time, but he quite properly rejected the idea of an eternal earth, and showed that there was no way to interpret Genesis as literal days. He had tried for a long time, finally admitted that it was impossible.
However, he did admit that when scripture is unclear, we should be willing to revise our beliefs as new evidence becomes known.
Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.
Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf
He seems somewhat confused to me, as you do as well. Things developing over time, and things coming about instantaneously are to very separate and apposed ideas.
Read it again, carefully. Augustine found an instantaneous creation, from which other things developed over time. His was the generally accepted idea of creation until the 20th century.
Creationists not only allow for, but insist according to literal bible interpretation, that things do and have changed over time.
None that I know of will admit that new organisms evolved from the potential for them to develop.
Augustine makes no mention above about deep time required for evolution, to the contrary, he speaks only of days.
As you know, Augustine pointed out that the "days" were not literal days, but categories of creation.
No Barbarian, it is not consistent to present instant creation and deep time evolution as one and the same.
It's quite logical to argue, as the early Christians did, that the universe was instantaneously created, and every other thing developed from that initial creation.
The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was. However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.
Provide the quote to that effect please Barbarian, regarding the same in relation to supposed science.
I'll have to do some reading to find that passage, but I'll check on it.
(Edit: In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.)
St. Augustine,
De Genesi ad LitteramIts not that I don't trust you, I just don't trust you.
That was a mistake, wasn't it?
Scientists do not know know how old the world is today either
It's roughly 4.5 billion years old, and there is abundant evidence for that. Would you like to learn about it?
This is where you stand. Any unbiased Christian scientist would have to admit that without any knowledge of the conditions before, at, and immediately after creation, it is impossible to accurately determine the age of this earth.
Obviously wrong. For example. Lord Kelvin was an elder in the Church of Scotland, and had prepared an estimate of the Earth's age as perhaps 10 million years or so, based on heat flux. After Rutherford discovered radioactivity, Kelvin allowed that his estimate was much too young. Rutherford, BTW, was a practicing Anglican. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a physicist who happened to be a Catholic priest, and was vigorously assailed by some atheists because it ruled out an eternal universe.
Affiliation of Christian Geologists *
The Affiliation of Christian Geologists is committed to the historic Christian faith and to its meaningful integration with the best available science. This effort reflects our desire to serve God with all our minds. Data from science also help us to serve our neighbors and to care for God's creation. Investigations of the Earth and the universe have been ongoing for hundreds of years using such scientific methodologies as:
astronomical data from telescopes and satellites
observation of the physical makeup and arrangement of earth and extraterrestrial materials
chemical and physical analytical study of rocks, sediments, soils, water, air, ice, and meteorites found on Earth as well as lunar and Martian materials
experimental synthesis to determine the origins of earth and extraterrestrial matter
analytical determination of absolute ages of natural materials, and
mathematical and computer modeling of the above observations and processes.
Beginning in the mid-1600's, geologists and astronomers (including many Christians) have consistently found that the scientific evidence clearly favors a vast age for the earth and the universe. Current scientific calculations indicate that the universe began about 13 billion years ago and the earth about 4.6 billion years ago. These conclusions are based on cumulative evidence and are refined with each new study. All scientific knowledge is constrained by the limitations of the methods of inquiry and discovery. We are limited and sometimes mistaken in our understanding of both nature and Scripture, but ultimately the two must not conflict, both coming from the same Creator. Although Scripture contains essential information on origins that gives meaning and perspective, technical details of the method and timing of creation are not major concerns of the Biblical text, and many orthodox theologians do not see a conflict between the Bible and an old creation.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/affiliation-christian-geologists
So you see, you're wrong. You may be right in the view of your own small portion of Chrstians, but not in the view of Christians generally.
Barbarian, regarding Augustine:
As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation. A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.
No Barbarian I do not see.
You could read and learn.
Barbarian observes:
As you see, there are no conflicts between the Bible and evolution. Genesis takes no stand on that at all. So even some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible. The Bible rules out the"life ex nihilo" belief of YE creationism, but since many YE believers have ceased to accept that particular doctrine, even YE creationism, in a modified form, is consistent with Genesis.
No Barbarian, again, I do not see anything because you say I do.
You are struggling against it, but you do see it now.
I see someone who thinks more highly of their own views than those clearly presented by the prophets of God.
As you see, God's own word in Genesis makes it clear, and no prophet denied His word. The "days" of Genesis are parables for the categories of creation; the fact that there cannot be mornings and evenings without a Sun to make them is sufficient to show this.
YE creationism is totally consistent with what the book of Genesis plainly states
Except for the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism. But I see many YE creationists now abandoning that doctrine, so many of them are at least consistent with Genesis, as much so as evolution.
: Amo Sat Apr 28, 2018 - 17:23:03Yes, you dispute what the scriptures plainly state. There is no question concerning what they plainly state. The burden to explain what they mean is not upon those who accept what they plainly state as the truth, but rather upon those who insist they do not. So, I ask once again as I have many times over, what do they mean according to your interpretation? Do you have an interpretation, or just insist they do not mean what they plainly state? I need no interpretation because I believe they mean just what they say. You are saying they do not, please expound.
From Vine's OT Expository Dictionary:
Dayyom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10).
Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).
Barbarian -
Barbarian, regarding evidence against evolution:
Barbarian -
So far, no one has shown us any.
Amor -
Well, I don't want to come right out and call you a liar, so I guess I will say that simply denying or ignoring that which has been posted regarding the same refutes nothing of the same.
Barbarian -
So far, everything proposed has been shot down. Which one was not addressed and adequately refuted?
If you feel I missed one, bring it up here, and we'll take a look.
All of the above is moot. Your answer "So far, no one has shown us any", was not in relation to evidence against evolution. It was in relation to my claim that many lies and deceptions have been promoted by evolutionists in the past. Here is the quote which you were responding to - "Many of the lies and deceptions of evolutionists have been exposed on this very thread". You changed the context of our conversation and the intent of my claim with your false pretense. If this wasn't an accident, is stinks of deceptive manipulation. Hopefully, it was the former.
Amo -
You have no idea what everyone thought concerning Augustine until the 20th century.
Barbarian -
No, that's wrong. For example Calvin thought very highly of him, and cited him in much of his theology. But it wasn't just Calvin:
Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an "Augustinian Renaissance". Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.
The wide dissemination of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, due to the extraordinary success of the printing press, was a powerful contributor to the religious renewal of the sixteenth century. Remarkable among these Church Fathers, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) has been regarded as the most consequential patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation interest in the study of Augustinian theology dramatically increased. There was an "Augustinian Renaissance".[1]
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/
Yes I know, your God syndrome has you believing that you really do know what everyone has ever thought of Augustine's writings.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 28, 2018 - 19:39:16
Barbarian, regarding evidence against evolution:
So far, no one has shown us any.
So far, everything proposed has been shot down. Which one was not addressed and adequately refuted?
If you feel I missed one, bring it up here, and we'll take a look.
Babarian regarding St. Augustine:
The most important of the ancient Christian philosophers. His work on Genesis was widely read throughout Christiandom. And until the 20th century, no one thought to deny what he wrote.
In fact, he is highly regarded by all three major branches of Christianity.
No, that's wrong. For example Calvin thought very highly of him, and cited him in much of his theology. But it wasn't just Calvin:
Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an "Augustinian Renaissance". Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.
The wide dissemination of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, due to the extraordinary success of the printing press, was a powerful contributor to the religious renewal of the sixteenth century. Remarkable among these Church Fathers, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) has been regarded as the most consequential patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation interest in the study of Augustinian theology dramatically increased. There was an "Augustinian Renaissance".[1]
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/
See above. Anyone can use a library or check historical sources on the net.
There were some, but it was never Christian orthodoxy. And of course, YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century. Prior to that, almost all creationists were OE. It was the form of creationism that was presented at the scopes trial, and the form of creationism advocated by 19th century fundamentalist theologians like Spurgeon.
His idea of evolution was for God to have created the potentiality of living things to appear, which then developed over time as conditions became right. That's not bad, considering how little information had.
He acknowledge an instantaneous creation, from which other things emerged over time. He had no idea how much time, but he quite properly rejected the idea of an eternal earth, and showed that there was no way to interpret Genesis as literal days. He had tried for a long time, finally admitted that it was impossible.
However, he did admit that when scripture is unclear, we should be willing to revise our beliefs as new evidence becomes known.
Specifically, we're talking about Book V Chapter 7 Paragraph 20, where he lays out what his topic is: "the production of things in the course of time following the creation of the world." And the first point he makes is this: "The [Book of Genesis] appropriately begins with [water,] from which all kinds of animals, plants, and trees are born [and] develop in time...each according to its nature." This is interesting because what he's going to try to show is that every type of animal, plant, and tree was generated from water and earth and gradually developed into their present forms. In the same paragraph he also speaks of "primordial seeds, whence all flesh and all vegetation are brought forth." The reference to "seeds" is an analogy that he'll get into a bit later: he compares the origin of species to the bringing forth of trees,
which start out as a seed and then grow out of the earth into their mature form.
Moving on, a couple of paragraphs later he gets to the heart of it: "The things [that God] had potentially created...[came] forth in the course of time on different days according to their different kinds...[and] the rest of the earth [was] filled with its various kinds of creatures, [which] produc[ed] their appropriate forms in due time." (Chapter 7 Paragraph 22) That is evolutionary thinking. God didn't create all species of animals all at once,according to St. Augustine; He created them in a potential kind of way, so that they would develop later, "producing their appropriate forms in due time."But he has more to say about that: "It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then."
http://cainaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AugustineonEvolution.pdf
Read it again, carefully. Augustine found an instantaneous creation, from which other things developed over time. His was the generally accepted idea of creation until the 20th century.
None that I know of will admit that new organisms evolved from the potential for them to develop.
As you know, Augustine pointed out that the "days" were not literal days, but categories of creation.
It's quite logical to argue, as the early Christians did, that the universe was instantaneously created, and every other thing developed from that initial creation.
The science of the time had no way of knowing how old the world was. However, Augustine stated that on such things, where scripture was not explicit, one should be willing to revise one's ideas if new evidence shows that those ideas are wrong.
I'll have to do some reading to find that passage, but I'll check on it.
(Edit: In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.)
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram
That was a mistake, wasn't it?
It's roughly 4.5 billion years old, and there is abundant evidence for that. Would you like to learn about it?
Obviously wrong. For example. Lord Kelvin was an elder in the Church of Scotland, and had prepared an estimate of the Earth's age as perhaps 10 million years or so, based on heat flux. After Rutherford discovered radioactivity, Kelvin allowed that his estimate was much too young. Rutherford, BTW, was a practicing Anglican. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a physicist who happened to be a Catholic priest, and was vigorously assailed by some atheists because it ruled out an eternal universe.
Affiliation of Christian Geologists *
The Affiliation of Christian Geologists is committed to the historic Christian faith and to its meaningful integration with the best available science. This effort reflects our desire to serve God with all our minds. Data from science also help us to serve our neighbors and to care for God's creation. Investigations of the Earth and the universe have been ongoing for hundreds of years using such scientific methodologies as:
astronomical data from telescopes and satellites
observation of the physical makeup and arrangement of earth and extraterrestrial materials
chemical and physical analytical study of rocks, sediments, soils, water, air, ice, and meteorites found on Earth as well as lunar and Martian materials
experimental synthesis to determine the origins of earth and extraterrestrial matter
analytical determination of absolute ages of natural materials, and
mathematical and computer modeling of the above observations and processes.
Beginning in the mid-1600's, geologists and astronomers (including many Christians) have consistently found that the scientific evidence clearly favors a vast age for the earth and the universe. Current scientific calculations indicate that the universe began about 13 billion years ago and the earth about 4.6 billion years ago. These conclusions are based on cumulative evidence and are refined with each new study. All scientific knowledge is constrained by the limitations of the methods of inquiry and discovery. We are limited and sometimes mistaken in our understanding of both nature and Scripture, but ultimately the two must not conflict, both coming from the same Creator. Although Scripture contains essential information on origins that gives meaning and perspective, technical details of the method and timing of creation are not major concerns of the Biblical text, and many orthodox theologians do not see a conflict between the Bible and an old creation.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/affiliation-christian-geologists
So you see, you're wrong. You may be right in the view of your own small portion of Chrstians, but not in the view of Christians generally.
Barbarian, regarding Augustine:
As you see, he was quite perceptive about the nature of creation. A sudden creation of an unformed universe, followed by a gradual unfolding of all things from that initial creation.
You could read and learn.
All just more of the same self exaltation and justification of the sinful heart rebelling against the testimony of God's word, and all evidence provided to the contrary. Constantly defending presumptuous calculations, observations, speculations, and theories which contradict the plain testimony of God's word, and can have no basis in fact due to serious lack of information regarding the conditions, whys, wherefores, and methodology of God's creation. Some of which is actually provided by scripture which you and yours reject in your self righteous and exalted opinion of your own superiority to the words of the chosen prophets of God.
Your faith is in the science of fallen humanity above the word of God. You choose the science of this world filled with atheists and non believers, above the observations of scientists who also believe scripture. This because like the fallen of this world you place more value upon your own understanding, than the Word of God. The exact problem which Adam and Eve exhibited in the garden which got us int this mess in the first place. God says one thing, you say another. We are all choosing whom we serve.
All just more of the same self exaltation and justification of the sinful heart rebelling against the testimony of God's word
You're confusing your word with God's. As you know, your particular interpretation of Genesis isn't shared by most Christians. That's not to say being a creationist means you aren't a Christian; it just means you've started to assume your own ideas are those of God.
The evidence for evolution is, as you have seen, compelling. But it's not necessary for you to accept the way He created things, in order to be one of His followers.
Your faith is in the science of fallen humanity above the word of God.
You are not God, and should not presume to speak for him, against other Christians. You choose a modern revision of His word against scripture as writen. This because like the fallen of this world you place more value upon your own understanding, than the Word of God.
When people try to separate others from God, they only succeed in separating themselves from Him. Don't do that.
: The Barbarian Sun Apr 29, 2018 - 17:45:32
You're confusing your word with God's. As you know, your particular interpretation of Genesis isn't shared by most Christians. That's not to say being a creationist means you aren't a Christian; it just means you've started to assume your own ideas are those of God.
The evidence for evolution is, as you have seen, compelling. But it's not necessary for you to accept the way He created things, in order to be one of His followers.
You are not God, and should not presume to speak for him, against other Christians. You choose a modern revision of His word against scripture as writen. This because like the fallen of this world you place more value upon your own understanding, than the Word of God.
When people try to separate others from God, they only succeed in separating themselves from Him. Don't do that.
No I certainly am not God. This is not the question, the question is concerning the bible, is it God's word or not? Is it's testimony true, or is your testimony true. That the two are not the same, is apparent to any and all willing to admit the obvious. So what about the dependability of scripture?
2 Tim 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Is the above statement of scripture true Barbarian? If so, how can it be if in fact the very foundational claims of scripture do not mean what they plainly seem to state, and are not truly definably understood by any including you and yours who insist they know the creation account absolutely is not literal? So much for Paul's words to Timothy, we are all dependent upon "Christian" evolutionists for the real truth of scripture as defined by them, but never actually defined by them. Kind of makes doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness according to scripture obsolete, doesn't it? Perhaps that is the point, is it?
You handle the evidence against your false claim that YE creation is of modern design the same way you and yours handle evidence against your pet theory of evolution, ignore, deny, and or suppress all such. So be it. I will continue to provide the evidence against both if your false claims, that they may be exposed by all seeking real historical and or scientific truth.
The following is a summary of an article addressing out of place artifacts which evolutionists ignore or suppress because their estimated time and place cannot fit their beloved theory. The link provided is to the article in it's entirety.
http://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-13-ooparts-out-of-place-artifacts-or-one-more-reason-why-the-evolutionists-dating-scheme-is-a-fraud-part-c/
Summary
There is solid, hard empirical evidence in the form of man-made artifacts and human skeletal remains unearthed throughout the world ("topsy-turvy" fossils) in strata locations and conditions that defy any evolutionary explanation of human origins or of the accepted evolutionary view of the age of the earth. We have seen in this series just a smidgin of the evidence. The reader is urged to review the entirety of the evidence presented in "The Hidden History of the Human Race." (An online PDF version is available here, minus photographs and diagrams and the pages do not correspond to the book version.) We have seen that there is pervasive censorship in academia and science research, "knowledge filtration" to use Cremo's and Thompson's terminology, designed to uphold the current evolutionary paradigm of origins and human history. We have seen moreover that there is actual and substantive persecution against dissenters engaged in by the evolutionary establishment against those who would contradict the prevailing dogma, and even against those, such as Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who naively bring such information to public attention not realizing the implications of their data. Even they are not safe from persecution at the hands of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine.
: Amo Sat May 05, 2018 - 07:53:17No I certainly am not God. This is not the question, the question is concerning the bible, is it God's word or not?
No, the question is not is it God's word or not. The question is concerning the Bible, is it your interpretation or not. And the answer to that question should be obvious to all; no it is not your interpretation or not.
Apart from your, and most YECs, interpretation of the Hebrew word
yom to mean 24 hours, there is no significant evidence for a 6000 year young universe -- none.
More quotes concerning the same from the link provided below.
http://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-13-part-b-ooparts-out-of-place-artifacts-or-one-more-reason-why-the-evolutionists-dating-scheme-is-a-fraud/
"There are quite a few authenticated cases of man-made artifacts being found in rocks that are thought to be very old, especially coal seams, for example. It is quite commonplace. What tends to happen is that conventional geologists take these artifacts and dismiss them immediately. They say they must be wrong, they couldn't possibly be of that age.
"Well, I suppose there are two explanations for these artifacts. The first is that there really were people making things many, many millions of years ago or, alternatively, our dating methods are not as reliable as we think they are and the strata are much younger. I think on the whole the second explanation is probably the more sensible one.
"On the face of it an artifact, a human artifact found in a layer of rock which seems to be millions of years old is an inexplicable anomaly. It's not so inexplicable if the strata isn't millions of years old and if the dating method that's been used is in fact inaccurate, and I suspect that in many cases that's exactly what has happened."– Richard Milton, from the YouTube video, "Forbidden Science – Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution"
Michael Cremo
In the world of paleontology, and especially paleoanthropology, there is before Java Man, and there is after Java Man. Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "upright ape-man") is a dividing point in the history of evolutionary speculation. In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, for approximately a period of 50 years, the top three most influential "examples" or cases of "evolution" which, more than any others, solidified attitudes and beliefs in the Western world regarding the subject of evolution were 1) "Java Man," 2) "Piltdown Man" and 3) "Nebraska Man" in chronological order. Java Man, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are how we got where we are today, at least as far as the storyline on human origins is concerned. It bears very strong emphasis that two of these three cases were outright fraudulent hoaxes (Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) and the third (Java Man) an extremely dubious case involving incredible stretches of assumptions regarding the association of bones to one another, and some concealment of relevant evidence on the part of Java Man's "discoverer," Eugene Dubois. Cremo comments:
"Most of these fossils [Cremo refers here to human skeletal remains and man-made object "dating" to many millions of years] and artifacts were unearthed before the discovery by Eugene Dubois of Java Man...Java Man was found in Middle Pleistocene deposits generally given an age of 800,000 years. This discovery became a benchmark. Henceforth, scientists would not expect to find fossils or artifacts of anatomically modern humans in deposits of equal or greater age. If they did, they (or someone wiser) concluded that this was impossible and found some way to discredit the find as a mistake, an illusion, or a hoax. Before Java Man, however, reputable nineteenth-century scientists found a number of examples of anatomically modern human skeletal remains in very ancient strata."—pg. 7, "The Hidden History of the Human Race", emph. supp.
One very interesting "out of place" artifact is a copper coin found in Lawn Ridge, Illinois in Marshall County during a well boring in rock strata at a depth of somewhere between 114 – 125 feet, reported by William E. Dubois of the Smithsonian Institution in 1871. Per Cremo's inquiry to the Illinois State Geological Survey, the age of the deposits at the 114 feet level at that location dates "somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago." The coin contained enigmatic figures and inscriptions on both sides in an unknown language. William Dubois concluded that the coin was made in a machine shop, on a rolling mill, cut with shears or a chisel and that the edges were filed down.
Evolutionists will, as predictably as night follows day, scream "hoax" or "intrusive deposition from a higher stratum" without any evidence of such being the case. They simply "know" that such explanations must be so because the existence of such an artifact from an unknown civilization, especially in the Americas, conflicts with the "orthodox" doctrine of evolution and its necessary dating schema. The most rational explanation to account for this coin is that the accepted geological dating schema is fundamentally flawed, or that human beings were making copper coins 200,000 – 400,000 years ago in the Americas.
Cremo comments:
"The quasi-coins above suggest the existence of a civilization at least 200,000 years ago in North America. Yet beings intelligent enough to make and use coins (Homo sapiens sapiens) are generally not thought to have lived much earlier than 100,000 years ago. According to standard views, metal coins were first used in Asia Minor during the eighth century B.C."—pg. 110, "The Hidden History of the Human Race"
Hueyatlaco and El Horno, Mexico; Sophisticated Stone Tools 250,000 Years Old and the Virginia Steen-McIntyre Case
"In the 1960s, sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work of Cro-Magnon man [i.e., modern humans] were unearthed...at Hueyatlaco, near Valsequillo, 75 miles southeast of Mexico City. Stone tools of a somewhat cruder nature were found at the nearby site of El Horno. At both the Hueyatlaco and El Horno sites, the stratigraphic location of the implements does not seem to be in doubt...a team of geologists who worked for the U.S. Geological Survey gave them ages of about 250,000 years. This team, working under a grant from the National Science Foundation, consisted of Harold Malde and Virginia Steen-McIntyre, both of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the late Roald Fryxell of Washington State University.
"These geologists said four different dating methods independently yielded unusually great ages for the artifacts found near Valsequillo. The dating methods used were (1) uranium series dating, (2) fission track dating, (3) tephra hydration dating, and (4) study of mineral weathering.
"...(T)he date of about 250,000 years obtained for Hueyatlaco...provoked a great deal of controversy...it would have revolutionized not only New World anthropology but the whole picture of human origins. Human beings capable of making the sophisticated tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa.
"In attempting to get her team's conclusions published, Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced many social pressures and obstacles...
"The publication of a paper by Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues on Hueyatlaco was inexplicably held up for years..."—
"On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: "The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that!...Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period. Their reasoning is circular."– pg 91-92,
"The Hidden History of the Human Race On page Pg. 93: Cremo comments: "The anomalous findings at Hueyatlaco resulted in personal abuse and professional penalties, including withholding of funds and loss of job, facilities, and reputation for Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her case opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of conflict and hurt."
Some years ago, I had the opportunity to sit in two lectures that took place on two weekends. On the first weekend, it was John Clayton and his old earth presentation. The next weekend it was a young earth presentation by somebody whose name I cannot recall.
They both referred to scientific information and biblical interpretation, as well as some philosophical ideas, to support their particular views. I wrestled with the info for quite some time, but was not able to conclusively pick a side because I do not have the scientific knowledge.
I could only settle with the same conclusion both fellas left with their audiences: God did it.
: 4WD Sat May 05, 2018 - 08:16:53
No, the question is not is it God's word or not. The question is concerning the Bible, is it your interpretation or not. And the answer to that question should be obvious to all; no it is not your interpretation or not.
Apart from your, and most YECs, interpretation of the Hebrew word yom to mean 24 hours, there is no significant evidence for a 6000 year young universe -- none.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Please do enlighten us, and interpret the above matter of fact statement of scripture. What does it really mean according to your understanding and what is the basis of that understanding, God's word, or fallen human observations? Why do you defy the above testimony spoken by the mouth of God to humanity, and written with His own finger twice for them as well? Is it not because you do not really believe the bible to be such?
There is no evidence against a 6000 year old universe either, since none can know the why's, wherefores, conditions, or abilities of production possessed by the God who could do such a thing. Either God is capable of creating a finished product as scripture conclusively states He is, or He is not and then and only then, is your theory tenable. If in fact God created a fully functional universe in a short period of time, as scripture states He did, there would be no way for anyone to accurately date such according to the presumptions deep time slow progression. All calculations would be completely incorrect, because the underlying premise of said calculations is incorrect. The presumptions of the sciences of deep time evolution and YE creationism inevitably lead to completely different conclusions because of the huge difference in the presumptions each is built upon. One is built upon faith in the accuracy of God's word, the other is built upon faith in the accuracy of the observations of fallen humanity in contradiction to the plain testimony of God's word.
Atheistic Evolutionists and YE Creationists stick to their guns regarding who they place their faith in. Atheists place their faith in human observation and theoretical development explaining their origin, Creationists place their faith in God's word concerning the same. "Christian" Evolutionists compound the two, creating a false unity based upon a false premise. They are nothing more or less than one more part of BABYLON THE GREAT'S design to create the false unity of all humanity in rebellion against God before He returns to set all things straight. The governments of this world are reliant upon compromise for the sake of unity, the government of God does not and will not compromise truth for the sake of unity. All who do such will have no place in the kingdom of God.
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.God's word is truth, and Christ's own are sanctified through that truth. Christ's kingdom in this world is composed of those who submit to the truths of God's word, not God's word as defined, changed, or discarded by the observations and speculations of fallen humanity.
http://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-12-frauds-of-a-feather-national-geographics-archaeoraptor-hoax-part-2/
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560
1 November 1999
OPEN LETTER TO:
Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary PRaven@nas.org
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Peter,
I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.
With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.
Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so. Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists—that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.
Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation. There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.
Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.
Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.
More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.
Sincerely,
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Ph. 202-357-33212
FAX 1-202-633-8084
email: olson.storrs@nmnh.si.edu
More evidence against the false claim that very few Christians throughout history believed in a literal six day creation. Emphasis mine.
http://bpc.org/?page_id=550
Westminister Confession of Faith
Chapter 4 Of Creation
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.
More six day creationists, emphasis mine.
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc04.html
THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH
Chapter 4: Of Creation
1.In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
( John 1:2, 3; Hebrews 1:2; Job 26:13; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 1:31 )
2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.
( Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 1:26; Romans 2:14, 15; Genesis 3:6 )
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1690/7/part/4
Confession of Faith Ratification Act 1690
Chap. iv. Of Creation
1 IT pleased God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power wisdom and goodness in the beginning to create or make of nothing the world and all things therein whether visible or invisible in the space of six days and all very good
2 AFTER God had made all other creatures he created man male and female with reasonable and immortall souls and indued with knowledge righteousness and true holiness after his own image having the Law of God written in their hearts and power to fullfill it and yet under a possibility of transgressing being left to the liberty of their own will which was subject unto change Besyde this law written in their hearts they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which whilst they kept they were happy in their communion with God and had dominion over the creatures
INSTITUTES OF
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
by John Calvin
BOOK FIRST
CHAPTER 14
IN THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, AND ALL THINGS IN IT, THE TRUE GOD DISTINGUISHED BY CERTAIN MARKS
FROM FICTITIOUS GODS.
2. With the same view Moses relates that the
work of creation was accomplished not in one moment, but in six days. By this statement we are drawn away from fiction to the one God
who thus divided his work into six days, that we may have no reluctance to devote our whole lives to the contemplation of it. For though our eyes, in what direction soever they turn, are forced to behold the works of God, we see how fleeting our attention is, and holy quickly pious thoughts, if any arise, vanish away. Here, too, objection is taken to these progressive steps as inconsistent with the power of God, until human reason is subdued to the obedience of faith, and learns to welcome the calm quiescence to which the sanctification of the seventh day invited us. In the very order of events, we ought diligently to ponder on the paternal goodness of God toward the human race, in not creating Adam until he had liberally enriched the earth with all good things...........................
22...................................Moreover, as I lately observed, the Lord himself, by the very order of creation, has demonstrated that he created all things for the sake of man.
Nor is it unimportant to observe, that he divided the formation of the world into six days, though it had been in no respect more difficult to complete the whole work, in all its parts, in one moment than by a gradual progression. But he was pleased to display his providence and paternal care towards us in this, that before he formed man, he provided whatever he foresaw would be useful and salutary to him..................................
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/what-did-reformers-believe-about-age-earth/
Two Views of Genesis 1 in Christian History
There have been many Christians through history who believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Basil of Caesarea (AD 329–379) wrote that in the context of "morning" and "evening" a "day" in Genesis 1 referred to a day of "twenty-four hours." Ambrose (c. AD 339–397) wrote in his commentary on Genesis, "The length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent." The English historian and theologian Bede (c. AD 672–735) commented on Genesis 1:5 that the first day was "without a doubt a day of twenty-four hours."
On the other hand, other Christians read Genesis 1 as an allegory or symbolic story. Origen (c. AD 185–254) rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The great theologian Augustine (AD 354–430) believed that the six days were not periods of time but the way God taught the angels about creation. Why did they believe this? First, they were influenced by an ancient book of Jewish wisdom that is not part of the Bible, misunderstanding it to say that God created all things in an instant. Second, they wanted to reconcile Christianity with Greek philosophy much as the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (20 BC– AD 50) had tried to do, while not rejecting the major biblical doctrine that one God created all things.
The allegorical approach to the Bible prevailed in the Middle Ages, but some major theologians still favored a literal reading of Genesis 1. Peter Lombard (c. AD 1096–1164) acknowledged both ways Christians had understood the days of Genesis 1, but took the view that he believed fit Genesis better, namely, that God created everything out of nothing and shaped it into its perfected form over the period of "six days." Lombard taught that the days of Genesis 1, defined by mornings and evenings, should be understood as "the space of twenty four hours." Bonaventure (AD 1221–1274) argued that God created "in the space of six days"—a phrase that will appear later in Reformed writings.
Though they interpreted Genesis 1 in different ways, virtually all these Christians still believed that the world was only several thousand years old, in contrast to the Greek philosophical view of an eternal or nearly eternal world. They did not see creation as a process spanning long eras, but a relatively short event, whether God completed it in an instant, or in six ordinary days....................................
As a result of this approach to the Bible, the Reformers embraced a literal view of Genesis. Martin Luther (AD 1483–1546) wrote, "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago."14 He relied on biblical records to compute the age of the earth, estimating that in 1540 the world was 5,500 years old.15 He acknowledged that some people followed Aristotle's view that the world had always existed, or Augustine's view that Genesis 1 was an allegory. But Luther believed that Moses wrote Genesis in a plain sense. He said,
Therefore, as the proverb has it, he calls "a spade a spade," i.e., he employs the terms "day" and "evening" without allegory, just as we customarily do. . . . Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit..........................
The Reformers were not naïve; they too faced atheistic skeptics. We should not think that only in this modern age have people tried to explain the origin of the universe and biological life without giving glory to the Creator. Calvin knew that the Bible's teaching of the relatively young age of the earth would provoke some to laugh and sneer, but realized that profane men will mock at almost every major teaching of Christianity.24 He was aware that some people taught that "the world came together by chance" as "tiny objects tumbling around" formed the stars, the earth, living creatures, and human beings. Calvin believed that the excellence and artistry of the smallest parts of the human body showed such theories of random creation to be ridiculous.25 God revealed that He created the world in six days about six thousand years ago to protect the Church from pagan fables about our origins, to glorify Himself as the only Creator and Lord, and to call us to submit our minds to God's will and Word.26
Calvin regarded the early chapters of Genesis as "the history of the creation of the world," and delighted in them because creation is "the splendid mirror of God's glory."27 To be sure, the Bible does not reveal all the facts that can be discovered by astronomy — though Calvin said that astronomy is "pleasant" and "useful" for Christians.28 Scripture records creation in words that ordinary people can understand, not technical scientific language.29 Still, the Bible is true, and Genesis is real history. Foolish men may ridicule God's ways, but the humble know better: "Since his will is the rule of all wisdom, we ought to be contented with that alone."...................................
Additional Major Reformers
Other major Reformers agreed with Calvin about the six days of creation, and the first three days in particular. Though examples could be multiplied, I will mention only four. Wolfgang Musculus (AD 1497–1563), an astute Reformed theologian whom Calvin highly esteemed, wrote that the six days of creation were "natural days." Speaking of the first three days of creation, he wrote: "For natural days are comprised of these parts—evening and morning—in order that we may rightly understand the three day period as having ceased in the space of three nights and days."35 For Musculus, the fourth day did not begin a new chronology; rather, all six days of creation were viewed by him as consisting of twenty-four hours.36
Peter Martyr Vermigli (AD 1499–1562), an Italian Reformer and one of Calvin's most influential contemporaries, also believed in a young earth. In his systematic theology, he raises the issue that some object to the biblical account of creation by demanding that God could have created the world "long before" Genesis 1 advocates. As to why God created "so late," Martyr responds: "This is an arrogant and malepert question, wherein mans curiosotie cannot be satisfied; but by beating down the follie thereof. For if I should grant thee, that the world was made before, at anie certeine instant of time, that thou couldest imagine; yet thou mightiest still complaine, that the same was but latelie made, if thou refer thy cogitation to the eternitie of God; so as we must herein deale after a godlie maner, and not with this malepert and rash curiositie."37 He also warns against believing that Genesis 1:2 was speaking of an "eternall and uncreated chaos, or confused heape," that was "extant before" God's creation, and God created later from things that were "mingled together" in this chaos.38 Martyr adds: "But we saie, that the same heape also was made the first date"39—a date that lasted only twenty-four hours and was the first of six days. Elsewhere, Martyr taught that "the evening and morning were made the first days of the gathering together and spreading forth of light before the bringing forth of the sunne." He then added, "When we speak of the creation of things, we bring not forth one thing out of another after Aristotle's manner, but we affirm all natures, as well as bodies without bodie [i.e., angels], to be created of nothing by the word of God."40
Henry Bullinger (AD 1504–1575) was a Swiss Reformer who succeeded Ulrich Zwingli as head of the Zurich church. He rivalled Calvin in influence throughout Europe in the sixteenth century, and produced some 150 treatises, the most famous of which was The Decades, which consisted of fifty sermons in which he preached his way through a systematic theology. In the first sermon of the first decade of sermons, Bullinger advocates a young earth, stating that a careful reading of Genesis and Exodus affirms that from the creation in Genesis 1 to the death of Moses spanned 2,488 years.41 Six sermons later, Bullinger writes, "If thou bring into parts, and severally examine what he made in those six days, in which order, with what beauty, to how great commodity of mankind, and finally how almost with no labour at all he brought them all forth, as it is at large written by Moses in the first of Genesis, thou shalt be compelled to be amazed at the goodwill and power of God."42
Zacharias Ursinus (AD 1534–1583), a German Reformed theologian who served as the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, similarly embraced a young earth view. In his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, he wrote in 1616, "According to the common reckoning, it is now, counting from this 1616 of Christ, 5534 years since the creation of the world."43 He then cites Melanchthon who would have believed that the world in 1616 would have been 5,579 years; Luther, 5,576 years; the Genevan theologians, 5,559 years; and Beroaldus, 5,545 years. After consulting these theologians, Ursinus concludes "that the world was created by God at least not much over 5,559 or 5,579 years."44
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the accepted interpretation of the Reformers who addressed these subjects is that they by and large believed (1) in a young earth of around 6,000 years in terms of our modern 21st century chronology, (2) that God created all things in six twenty-four days, and (3) that there were no gaps of time in the creation week. The fact that many Reformers did not address these issues directly or did so only briefly does not appear to be because they were not significant to them, but because there was little or no controversy about them since they unitedly maintained that the creation days were to be understood literally.45 As far as the Reformers were concerned, the literal historicity of Genesis 1 was not up for debate; "to them the six-day creation meant a six-day creation," which in turn meant a young earth.....................................
Girolamo Zanchi (AD 1516–1590) was a professor of Old Testament and theology who taught at Strassburg and Heidelberg. A few years before he died, Zanchi published a detailed confession of faith, which said that God created the world "in the space of six days."50 He also published a massive book titled Concerning the Works of God in Creation during the Space of Six Days, in which he argued that Genesis 1 clearly says God created the world in six literal days.51
James Ussher (AD 1581–1656), bishop of Armagh, is now best known for his biblical history of the world, in which he famously calculated the date of creation at 4004 BC In 1615, he led a gathering of church leaders in Dublin to adopt the Irish Articles, which say, "In the beginning of time, when no creature had any being, God by his Word alone, in the space of six days, created all things."52 These words come directly from Ussher's Principles of Christian Religion, which he wrote around 1603.53 Ussher was invited to participate in the Westminster Assembly, and though he declined, his writings still greatly influenced the documents written there.
Video addressing what the Reformers believed about creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR7yY5JT4vk
http://www.creeds.net/reformed/cmwales/main.htm
Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists or the Presbyterians of Wales.
6. Of the Creation.
In the beginning God (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) created the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that therein is, for himself : "For his pleasure they are and were created." "He hath done whatsoever he pleased." "The things which are seen were not made of things which do appear;" but he "spake the word, and so it was; he commanded, and it stood fast;" and all things were made in six days, and everything was very good (a).
http://www.apuritansmind.com/creeds-and-confessions/the-irish-articles-of-religion-by-james-ussher/
The Irish Articles of Religion (1615) - by James Ussher
Of the creation and government of all things.
18. In the beginning of time when no creature had any being, God by his word alone, in the space of six days, created all things, and afterwards by his providence doth continue, propagate, and order them according to his own will.
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/philadelphia-confession.pdf
THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1742
Chapter 4
Of Creation
1. In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
(John 1:2, 3; Heb. 1:2; Job 26:13; Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:16; Gen. 1:31)
Can't be bothered to read all the spam above but here is a great article regarding scientific dating methods for anyone that cares to learn.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
Amo cites the opinion of a man who thinks birds evolved from reptiles:
http://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-12-frauds-of-a-feather-national-geographics-archaeoraptor-hoax-part-2/
Well, that's a surprise. I'm guessing Amo doesn't know that Feduccia and Olson think that dinosaurs and birds have a common thecodont ancestor.
However, the discovery of numerous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds, as well as the discovery that birds and dinosaurs (but not thecodonts) have a pneumatic bone system for respiration, makes Olson's hypothesis difficult to support.
An interesting, if dated discussion of the two ideas is found here:
https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-8-481.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAagwggGkBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGVMIIBkQIBADCCAYoGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMu6WyYH0aHPeSHVQaAgEQgIIBWy-2ud6hL7u1auhP0xoTgqgW_z-l5b75Kz5uagfWJ8_COjiEkw8BO7_x8z15j5FgacEtR_ivD2-BzR_0dkJUGfAbnm5nllVc0vkCpZDCEnBMRNBlPIhwBcxY8IQpdcao0cCAVUcyStPCgLjdruRsVO2x3q5_LZkj8N8iR8bmaRTf88XI-k9TpgbVWHXSAoMEU6o1NHgW7hty7jx3RRpEFUVYHrzTVrfFYxzdgetGeE-VcArLia5HeUFxLlwyFX-20qpBRveDteQjS31u5xXz9chwfl3rR7LUbxRKRbiYn3mpr4qxCistG7bYTZ6P-ThdqARPNTsUe78JE0GB4-yF1-vMlpBVmkkHQI9RqsfS8Fso_XJc1kVMIuRldgb_y1h2Olh7pBqLQXXobZfkrkDYyE6bXcTUWuxpTmcygFRpK8JEigIZL9lLxGWDqEueCzAoZTwAAS5rrMSDFzBo
: Alan Sat May 05, 2018 - 17:46:46
Can't be bothered to read all the spam above but here is a great article regarding scientific dating methods for anyone that cares to learn.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044
Can't be bothered to read the biased article provided which no doubt will not take into account the biblical global flood which would entirely altar all conclusions drawn apart from considering the same. Just to mention one presumption applied in the above dating methods no doubt. Below is a great article though regarding the presumptions assumed by those using the supposed bullet proof scientific methods of dating addressed in the link Alan provided.
http://www.basfeijen.nl/evolution/radiometricdating.htm
: Amo Sun May 06, 2018 - 08:21:19Can't be bothered to read the biased article provided which no doubt will not take into account the biblical global flood which would entirely altar all conclusions drawn apart from considering the same. Just to mention one presumption applied in the above dating methods no doubt. Below is a great article though regarding the presumptions assumed by those using the supposed bullet proof scientific methods of dating addressed in the link Alan provided.
http://www.basfeijen.nl/evolution/radiometricdating.htm
First of all, what makes you think that is a great article on anything? It is apparent, Amo, that you haven't the knowledge or the expertise to evaluate the scientific quality or value of the article. The truth here is that you think it is great the only because it agrees with you. But so what? You don't know anything about the subject in the first place, therefore agreement with you is worth nothing.
Second, the article is condemning the field of radiometric dating methods because it is based upon assumptions. But of course the position the article presents is also based upon assumptions. So where does that get us?
Here, as you always do, you search and search the web until you find something that you agree with and then you post that as if it actually had some merit or authentic message to convey.
: The Barbarian Sun May 06, 2018 - 00:02:26
Amo cites the opinion of a man who thinks birds evolved from reptiles:
Well, that's a surprise. I'm guessing Amo doesn't know that Feduccia and Olson think that dinosaurs and birds have a common thecodont ancestor.
However, the discovery of numerous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds, as well as the discovery that birds and dinosaurs (but not thecodonts) have a pneumatic bone system for respiration, makes Olson's hypothesis difficult to support.
An interesting, if dated discussion of the two ideas is found here:
https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-8-481.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAagwggGkBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGVMIIBkQIBADCCAYoGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMu6WyYH0aHPeSHVQaAgEQgIIBWy-2ud6hL7u1auhP0xoTgqgW_z-l5b75Kz5uagfWJ8_COjiEkw8BO7_x8z15j5FgacEtR_ivD2-BzR_0dkJUGfAbnm5nllVc0vkCpZDCEnBMRNBlPIhwBcxY8IQpdcao0cCAVUcyStPCgLjdruRsVO2x3q5_LZkj8N8iR8bmaRTf88XI-k9TpgbVWHXSAoMEU6o1NHgW7hty7jx3RRpEFUVYHrzTVrfFYxzdgetGeE-VcArLia5HeUFxLlwyFX-20qpBRveDteQjS31u5xXz9chwfl3rR7LUbxRKRbiYn3mpr4qxCistG7bYTZ6P-ThdqARPNTsUe78JE0GB4-yF1-vMlpBVmkkHQI9RqsfS8Fso_XJc1kVMIuRldgb_y1h2Olh7pBqLQXXobZfkrkDYyE6bXcTUWuxpTmcygFRpK8JEigIZL9lLxGWDqEueCzAoZTwAAS5rrMSDFzBo
Yes, I cite articles which reveal that evolutionists have many disagreements between themselves. It is not just creationists that have problems with the many speculations passed off to the world as scientific facts by self important and promoting evolutionists, but other evolutionists themselves often contradict and argue against their unscientifically supported speculations. The following link examines supposed transitional links of the past that have now been abandoned. Speculations concerning transitional forms are of course based upon the unproven THEORY of evolution, and are therefore determined according to the presumption that such is scientific fact. "Science" that seeks only to prove a theory without serious self examination and comparison to other theories concerning what is most probable, is not science but rather the simple pursuit of biased opinion and speculation.
https://creation.com/abandoned-transitional-forms
: 4WD Sun May 06, 2018 - 09:05:43
First of all, what makes you think that is a great article on anything? It is apparent, Amo, that you haven't the knowledge or the expertise to evaluate the scientific quality or value of the article. The truth here is that you think it is great the only because it agrees with you. But so what? You don't know anything about the subject in the first place, therefore agreement with you is worth nothing.
Second, the article is condemning the field of radiometric dating methods because it is based upon assumptions. But of course the position the article presents is also based upon assumptions. So where does that get us?
Here, as you always do, you search and search the web until you find something that you agree with and then you post that as if it actually had some merit or authentic message to convey.
Yes, I know many scientists consider themselves experts above questioning from all the pions below them. The message the article provided conveys is the message I have suggested several times already on these boards. Both creationism and evolution are built upon presumptions and therefore cannot ever be real scientific fact. They both require faith in the presumptions of others. Creationist presume the bible is the word of God and gives an accurate though unscientific account of the the creation of our world, and a global flood which completely interrupted and changed the world created by God before it. Atheistic and "Christian" evolutionists presume that either the bible is not true at all, or does not give an accurate account of creation at all, and is lying about a global flood or has greatly exaggerated the account of the same. Both sciences are built upon the presumptions of each, though evolutionary science is subject to much greater and diversified speculation and presumption because it has no text book as it were to guide such as the bible is for creationists.
This is a faith issue, not a science issue. As I have stated over and over, "Christian" evolutionists have more faith in the observations and speculations of fallen humanity than the holy scriptures. The arguments and contradicting views I present are to bring into question the theory of evolution, and many in support of the theory of creationism which I believe. Neither theory is scientifically proved fact, and neither can be, both requiring unobservable or testable presumptions at their inceptions and throughout their perspective observations. That is all. This is about faith, not science. Science is not all that fallen humanity makes it out to be. It is continuously built upon presumption upon presumption observed, speculated upon, and calculated from within the box of our own existence which God has formed, contained, and limited due to the deadly disease of sin which plagues all of us. My confidence is in the holy scriptures, not fallen human observations and speculations. "Christian" evolutionists try to combine God's wisdom with fallen humanities supposed wisdom, but God will completely separate the two when He returns and opens up the box we are now confined in. At that time, all fallen humanities sciences contradicting the word of God will be exposed for what they really are, vein imaginings of feeble and diseased beings cut off from the realities of God's true creations, awesome power, and therefore true knowledge as well.
Isa 34:34 Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. 2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. 3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. 4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
The following link examines supposed transitional links of the past that have now been abandoned. Speculations concerning transitional forms are of course based upon the unproven THEORY of evolution, and are therefore determined according to the presumption that such is scientific fact.
Before we get to the errors in your link you should know what a "theory" is. It's a well-tested idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence. When a hypothesis gets enough evidence (normally by fulfilled predictions) to convince most scientists, it's a theory. Theories are stronger than laws, because laws predict things, and theories both predict and explain things. I can show you some examples if you like.
However, the article wrongly asserts that scientists thought that coelacanths were a missing link to land animals. That's a common misconception. It is a primitive member of a group that led to land animals, but while coelacanths have some of the same bones in their limbs as we do, they don't have actual legs. Tiktaalik is considered a transitional because it has apomorphies of both groups. It's very close to the line that gave rise to land animals. We know know of quite a few different transitionals, including Acanthostega, such as Acanthostega, which also was a fish with legs with the same bones as ours.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Fishapods.png/350px-Fishapods.png)
All of these are lobed-fin fishes, except perhaps Icthyostega, which is almost a fully-developed land animal. Notice that coelacanths are similar, not do not have actual legs, and are not on the line of fish that led to land animals. Nor did any paleontologist say that they did.
We don't know who put the Piltdown fraud together, but we do know that evolutionists debunked it. It was a pretty good hoax, but science moves on, and technology became good enough to debunk the claim. It was kind of an embarrassment before it was debunked, since it was the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicted; a large brain in a primitive primate. And as more and more manlike primates with smaller brains were found, it stuck out more and more.
Your source seems to have grabbed a few stories, and made up details to fill in what they didn't know.
: Amo Sun May 06, 2018 - 08:21:19
Can't be bothered to read the biased article provided which no doubt will not take into account the biblical global flood which would entirely altar all conclusions drawn apart from considering the same. Just to mention one presumption applied in the above dating methods no doubt. Below is a great article though regarding the presumptions assumed by those using the supposed bullet proof scientific methods of dating addressed in the link Alan provided.
No bias in the article, there is absolutely no need for bias. Unlike you, the author of the article doesn't have anything to prove but rather the article and the site are a courtesy to help people understand the facts.
: Amo Sun May 06, 2018 - 09:47:23Yes, I know many scientists consider themselves experts above questioning from all the pions below them. The message the article provided conveys is the message I have suggested several times already on these boards. Both creationism and evolution are built upon presumptions and therefore cannot ever be real scientific fact.
And I know some YECs here and elsewhere who consider themselves experts above questioning about the meaning of Hebrew words and phrases and consider themselves expert translators of Hebrew to English. But that is really neither here nor there.
That you think this is a "faith" issue and not science only says what I have been saying all along; namely, you are really quite ignorant about anything of science. And what you believe or not about science changes absolutely nothing about science and truth. Say all you want about what you think and truly believe God means by what He has given us in His written word, that is completely up to you. But you really need to stay well away from any discussion of science. And that I think applies at just about every level of science from the most basic and beyond. The sad part of all of this is that the science you so detest is God's science. It is His science just as is His word.
Amo,
You and the other Bond Servants are fighting the Good Fight but this target has long ago found Satan and the form of religion sold by the Bugger. We all need the scripture, not the address (man's tag on YHWH's Word), in our hearts that we never operate without recalling that serving two masters is only serving Satan. With that in the forefront we will, best, operate recalling;
Matthew 7:6 New International Version
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
People that have purchased tickets for themselves and all of their associates to ride the Religion Train always ignore and teach their compadres to ignore Fellowshipping with YHWH because their Religion has taught them that like the Jewish Believer, they can never approach His presence without a Priest, completely trashing the Priesthood of the Believers.
I, some time ago, ceased to cast my pearls before this one because he refuses to address the issue of his access directly, to ,Yashuah, YHWH and Ruach. He has been very staunch and fact asserting that nobody can address Him without a Catholic Priest, their Father. Until I see a sign that YHWH has touched his heart I will do my best not to directly address his diversions and when he finds no more toys, perhaps his heart will open and hear the hear the knocking on it.
I, some time ago, ceased to cast my pearls before this one because he refuses to address the issue of his access directly, to ,Yashuah, YHWH and Ruach. He has been very staunch and fact asserting that nobody can address Him without a Catholic Priest, their Father. Until I see a sign that YHWH has touched his heart I will do my best not to directly address his diversions and when he finds no more toys, perhaps his heart will open and hear the hear the knocking on it.
Bill, good to hear from you again. Are you not posting at the other board now?
If you suppose you can't be with God without an intermediary, that's a mistake. Remember what God says:
Matthew 6:6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
Which is not to say that fellowship in worship is forbidden; it merely says that God wants you to speak to Him privately, not ostentatiously.
: th1b.taylor Mon May 07, 2018 - 14:55:56
Amo,
You and the other Bond Servants are fighting the Good Fight but this target has long ago found Satan and the form of religion sold by the Bugger. We all need the scripture, not the address (man's tag on YHWH's Word), in our hearts that we never operate without recalling that serving two masters is only serving Satan. With that in the forefront we will, best, operate recalling;
Matthew 7:6 New International Version
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
People that have purchased tickets for themselves and all of their associates to ride the Religion Train always ignore and teach their compadres to ignore Fellowshipping with YHWH because their Religion has taught them that like the Jewish Believer, they can never approach His presence without a Priest, completely trashing the Priesthood of the Believers.
I, some time ago, ceased to cast my pearls before this one because he refuses to address the issue of his access directly, to ,Yashuah, YHWH and Ruach. He has been very staunch and fact asserting that nobody can address Him without a Catholic Priest, their Father. Until I see a sign that YHWH has touched his heart I will do my best not to directly address his diversions and when he finds no more toys, perhaps his heart will open and hear the hear the knocking on it.
I appreciate your concern and input. Thank you. I'm not doing this to win an argument with the die hard "Christian" evolutionists, but rather to maintain the truth in the face of the enemies relentless attack upon the authority and authenticity of the testimony God's word. These deceivers are constantly pushing and forcing their faith as fact upon all in every manner they can. I believe God's own should maintain our push back against these deceptions which are not nearly as bullet proof as their propagators believe and or maintain. The evil one will never stop trying to deceive, nor should God's own ever stop combatting the same with the truth. Evolution is a farce, I will never stop exposing the same while those forcing it upon all they can continue to do so.
: The Barbarian Sun May 06, 2018 - 17:32:01
Before we get to the errors in your link you should know what a "theory" is. It's a well-tested idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence. When a hypothesis gets enough evidence (normally by fulfilled predictions) to convince most scientists, it's a theory. Theories are stronger than laws, because laws predict things, and theories both predict and explain things. I can show you some examples if you like.
However, the article wrongly asserts that scientists thought that coelacanths were a missing link to land animals. That's a common misconception. It is a primitive member of a group that led to land animals, but while coelacanths have some of the same bones in their limbs as we do, they don't have actual legs. Tiktaalik is considered a transitional because it has apomorphies of both groups. It's very close to the line that gave rise to land animals. We know know of quite a few different transitionals, including Acanthostega, such as Acanthostega, which also was a fish with legs with the same bones as ours.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Fishapods.png/350px-Fishapods.png)
All of these are lobed-fin fishes, except perhaps Icthyostega, which is almost a fully-developed land animal. Notice that coelacanths are similar, not do not have actual legs, and are not on the line of fish that led to land animals. Nor did any paleontologist say that they did.
We don't know who put the Piltdown fraud together, but we do know that evolutionists debunked it. It was a pretty good hoax, but science moves on, and technology became good enough to debunk the claim. It was kind of an embarrassment before it was debunked, since it was the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicted; a large brain in a primitive primate. And as more and more manlike primates with smaller brains were found, it stuck out more and more.
Your source seems to have grabbed a few stories, and made up details to fill in what they didn't know.
Yes, I know that you think the pictures drawn by an artist to depict what some claim as the fact of evolution is part of proving evolution true because well, they depict what you believe is true. To the contrary though, getting people to artistically render the imaginations of evolutionary theorists will never make the theory of evolution true, any more than the imaginations of evolutionists make evolution true. You simply choose to believe that commonality demands evolution rather than a common designer. Then you wrongly view all incidents of adaption, microevolution, and change as proof positive of your pet macroevolution theory. All of which could easily be the result of design by a God who knew such would be necessary the world of His own creation, which He Himself knew would undergo drastic changes in it's destruction and shift from one phase and world of original design to last forever, to the next phase of temporary existence until it's final destruction and complete recreation. This is the biblical testimony you reject in favor of the speculations of fallen humanity in defiance of the same. That is all.
: Alan Sun May 06, 2018 - 17:54:00
No bias in the article, there is absolutely no need for bias. Unlike you, the author of the article doesn't have anything to prove but rather the article and the site are a courtesy to help people understand the facts.
Here are the facts, which you deny, and will one day answer for denying.
Exo 20:1
And God spake all these words, saying,............................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Obviously, we have a different opinion regarding just exactly who knows and speaks the facts. I believe God is the one who does so, you believe fallen humanity are the one's who do so. So here we are back to the faith issue once again.
: 4WD Sun May 06, 2018 - 18:55:55
And I know some YECs here and elsewhere who consider themselves experts above questioning about the meaning of Hebrew words and phrases and consider themselves expert translators of Hebrew to English. But that is really neither here nor there.
That you think this is a "faith" issue and not science only says what I have been saying all along; namely, you are really quite ignorant about anything of science. And what you believe or not about science changes absolutely nothing about science and truth. Say all you want about what you think and truly believe God means by what He has given us in His written word, that is completely up to you. But you really need to stay well away from any discussion of science. And that I think applies at just about every level of science from the most basic and beyond. The sad part of all of this is that the science you so detest is God's science. It is His science just as is His word.
Yes, I understand your elitist mentality regarding scientists. I am not in your box or theirs. You will not define and set the parameters of what is science and what is not for me. I will not stay away from anything, but will continue to question and present evidence provided by the many who disagree with you, against your many faulty observations and conclusions. Your confidence in the superiority of your position proceeds from and is supportive of self, certainly not me or many others. We do not share your unfounded and or spurious confidence.
: Amo Sat May 12, 2018 - 08:19:26I believe God is the one who does so, you believe fallen humanity are the one's who do so. So here we are back to the faith issue once again.
Since you are among the fallen humanity and fallen humanity is wrong, then you must be wrong.
: 4WD Sat May 12, 2018 - 08:32:32
Since you are among the fallen humanity and fallen humanity is wrong, then you must be wrong.
I am certainly capable of being wrong. If I were defending my own
theory, your assertion would certainly be tenable. The following though, is not my words or theorizing, it is the word of God, and that is what your theory is denying.
20 And God spake all these words, saying,....................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God's word and testimony, not mine. That is the difference between your position and mine. I am simply agreeing with what the bible plainly states. Your are denying it.
: Amo Sat May 12, 2018 - 08:39:16
I am certainly capable of being wrong. If I were defending my own theory, your assertion would certainly be tenable. The following though, is not my words or theorizing, it is the word of God, and that is what your theory is denying.
20 And God spake all these words, saying,....................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God's word and testimony, not mine. That is the difference between your position and mine. I am simply agreeing with what the bible plainly states. Your are denying it.
But you are in fact defending your own theory. God's word may not be your theorizing, but your interpretation of what God means is your theorizing. Face it, Amo, you have no idea whatsoever what God meant by the words "evening" and "morning" in Genesis 1:5 since there was neither sun, stars, nor moon until later. And similarly you don't know what God meant by the word "day" either there either.
: 4WD Sat May 12, 2018 - 08:47:38
But you are in fact defending your own theory. God's word may not be your theorizing, but your interpretation of what God means is your theorizing. Face it, Amo, you have no idea whatsoever what God meant by the words "evening" and "morning" in Genesis 1:5 since there was neither sun, stars, nor moon until later. And similarly you don't know what God meant by the word "day" either there either.
Face it 4WD, you are not even responding to the scripture I quoted but dodging it and changing the topic to others, because you are in denial of what the scripture I quoted reveals. The scripture I quoted above is said to be from the mouth of God, summarizes the creation account given in Genesis emphasizing the literal days of creation, and then finalizing this exact point by establishing one literal day in seven as a commemoration of the creation of this world by God in six literal days. God commanded Israel to believe in the six day creation account recorded in Genesis, and to observe one literal day in seven to establish this truth. He was so serious about all of them understanding and believing this, that He even commanded the death penalty upon all who refused to acknowledge this truth, no doubt because doing so denies that God is who He says He is. This is exactly what you deny.
Exo 31:12
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for
it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord:
whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.What more can the word of God do for you 4WD to make this subject more plain and obvious to understand? How many times and ways must the truth be repeated by God's word for you to believe it? You reject the truths plainly stated in scripture, therefore you have fallen under the spell of strong delusion. You simply refuse to believe what the bible clearly, concisely, and emphatically states as the truth of creation. This is not about interpretation, it is about denial of the obvious intent and meaning of plainly stated scripture.
: Amo Sat May 12, 2018 - 10:49:51Face it 4WD, you are not even responding to the scripture I quoted....
Face it Amo, you are not even reponding to the Scripture I quoted, namely, Genesis 1:5. And besides, I'll bet you don't even know what He meant when He said
....and was refreshed (Exo 31:17). Obviously, that doesn't literally mean God was tired or worn out and needed to rest and be refreshed.
So face it Amo, so much of what you say God meant in any Scripture is more likely your own theological interpretation and likely terribly skewed.
: 4WD Sat May 12, 2018 - 11:17:28
Face it Amo, you are not even reponding to the Scripture I quoted, namely, Genesis 1:5. And besides, I'll bet you don't even know what He meant when He said
....and was refreshed (Exo 31:17). Obviously, that doesn't literally mean God was tired or worn out and needed to rest and be refreshed.
So face it Amo, so much of what you say God meant in any Scripture is more likely your own theological interpretation and likely terribly skewed.
Back to Genesis I see, without addressing at all the scriptures quoted, or the points relating to them. So, what is your interpretation of the scriptures I quoted where God said He created the world in six days. Or do you not believe God said these things? Same old, same old, my interpretation is wrong but you give no interpretation of your own. What is your interpretation of the verses I quoted from Exodus, not Genesis which I did not quote, and we have already been through before?
: Amo Sat May 12, 2018 - 15:15:19What is your interpretation of the verses I quoted from Exodus, not Genesis which I did not quote, and we have already been through before?
I think God meant the same thing in Exodus as He did in Genesis.
: 4WD Sat May 12, 2018 - 17:30:25
I think God meant the same thing in Exodus as He did in Genesis.
So God forced Israel to keep a literal seventh day every week in commemoration of figurative days which spanned deep time? Then told them to keep this literal day because He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, but changing the meaning of the word day between the sixth and seventh day without telling anyone about the change or even inferring such at all? Everyone is supposed to believe that this is a better interpretation than simply taking God's word for what it plainly says? I don't think so. This is an interpretation made to fit into one of fallen humanities pet theories about deep time and slow progressive evolution.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If six days really means some immeasurable amount of deep time, then God could not have ever enforced the Sabbath commandment as He did without contradicting Himself. The children of Israel would have to work for some immeasurable amount of time before they could take God's seventh day rest. Or do you espouse that God changed the meaning of days from literal days concerning work, then to figurative days concerning creation, and then back to literal days concerning the seventh day Sabbath without telling anyone or inferring any such thing at all? Again, I am not the one with the wacky method of interpretation here. Such sporadic, irrational, and conflicting method of interpretation is highly indicative of an attempt to make scripture fit a preconceived idea, rather than conforming one's beliefs to that of the same which is plainly and conclusively stated.
Amo,
If it was so conclusive, there would be no debate.
I recall a geologist, telling of how he gained some degree, went to Antarctica and took part in a coring. He said they counted over 300,000 layers (whatevers), which indicated 300,000 winter and summer seasons- 300,000 years.
Now I don't know if you hold to a ~6,000 year old earth, but many scientist would disagree with that idea, because of things like that core. Unless we want to say that God created false evidence of age into the earth that doesn't match up to the reality of its youth, then I would suggest that this issue is beyond our complete understanding.
I don't believe there is any contradiction between a proper interpretation of the word of God and a proper interpretation of the physical evidence. But then, arriving at the proper interpretation, either way, is the problem. I don't know any other way to interpret 300,000 layers of seasons, than to say that there have been at least 300,000 years of seasons to result in those layers. ::shrug::
: Amo Sun May 13, 2018 - 09:05:06 I don't think so.
So much for looking at the evidence. But of course that is your right.
: Amo....do you espouse that God changed the meaning of days from literal days concerning work, then to figurative days concerning creation....
Some time ago I gave you access to an article that shows why both six literal days for God's creation as expressed in Genesis and and a 13+billion year old universe as indicated by good science are both correct, no figurative implications needed. But you either didn't bother to read it or didn't understand it. again, of course, that is up to you to ignore what God has given us in His general revelation as well as what He has given us in His special revelation.
: soterion Sun May 13, 2018 - 09:20:33
Amo,
If it was so conclusive, there would be no debate.
I recall a geologist, telling of how he gained some degree, went to Antarctica and took part in a coring. He said they counted over 300,000 layers (whatevers), which indicated 300,000 winter and summer seasons- 300,000 years.
Now I don't know if you hold to a ~6,000 year old earth, but many scientist would disagree with that idea, because of things like that core. Unless we want to say that God created false evidence of age into the earth that doesn't match up to the reality of its youth, then I would suggest that this issue is beyond our complete understanding.
I don't believe there is any contradiction between a proper interpretation of the word of God and a proper interpretation of the physical evidence. But then, arriving at the proper interpretation, either way, is the problem. I don't know any other way to interpret 300,000 layers of seasons, than to say that there have been at least 300,000 years of seasons to result in those layers. ::shrug::
Really! Lucifer in whom sin originated, debated and rebelled against God's authority while commonly being in His literal presence, and seeing His unimaginable glory. The authority of God's word is very simple, it just isn't accepted in this world tarnished by sin in every individual. The entire existence of this planet is one continuous debate and war between the truth and the lie. Which war will only end when Christ returns and ends all wars.
: 4WD Sun May 13, 2018 - 09:21:01
So much for looking at the evidence. But of course that is your right.Some time ago I gave you access to an article that shows why both six literal days for God's creation as expressed in Genesis and and a 13+billion year old universe as indicated by good science are both correct, no figurative implications needed. But you either didn't bother to read it or didn't understand it. again, of course, that is up to you to ignore what God has given us in His general revelation as well as what He has given us in His special revelation.
Of what authority is such an article to me. There are countless articles out there contradicting God's word. I'm sorry I did not address this article. I probably did not even see it. Please do present it again for examination, and I will read and consider its observations.
If the natural world presents evidence of natural procreation and sure death at the end of life with no re-do's, should we trash the virgin birth and Christ's resurrection from the dead as described in the Bible?
: Jaime Sun May 13, 2018 - 11:43:54
If the natural world presents evidence of natural procreation and sure death at the end of life with no re-do's, should we trash the virgin birth and Christ's resurrection from the dead as described in the Bible?
Good point. If scripture is subordinate to conclusions drawn from the natural world around us, there would be no sense in believing in the virgin birth and resurrection. While there is evidence in the natural world of creation and the flood, there is no evidence whatsoever of virgin births, and or resurrections.
: Jaime Sun May 13, 2018 - 11:43:54If the natural world presents evidence of natural procreation and sure death at the end of life with no re-do's, should we trash the virgin birth and Christ's resurrection from the dead as described in the Bible?
Jaime, there is nothing in science or about science that precludes God. Moreover science does not preclude miracles or providential actions.
: Amo Sun May 13, 2018 - 13:55:43While there is evidence in the natural world of creation....
What evidence do you have of creation?
: Amo Sun May 13, 2018 - 11:15:12
Really! Lucifer in whom sin originated, debated and rebelled against God's authority while commonly being in His literal presence, and seeing His unimaginable glory. The authority of God's word is very simple, it just isn't accepted in this world tarnished by sin in every individual. The entire existence of this planet is one continuous debate and war between the truth and the lie. Which war will only end when Christ returns and ends all wars.
You should be a politician. You gave a response that didn't actually address a single thing I said. rofl
: Amo Sun May 13, 2018 - 11:19:02
Of what authority is such an article to me. There are countless articles out there contradicting God's word. I'm sorry I did not address this article. I probably did not even see it. Please do present it again for examination, and I will read and consider its observations.
Who said anything about authority? And who said anything about contradicting God's word? But if you are really interested....
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
4WD writes:
Jaime, there is nothing in science or about science that precludes God. Moreover science does not preclude miracles or providential actions.
Precisely. Science can't even discuss such things, because they are supernatural , and science by it's very nature, is limited to the natural world.
Same reason young earth creationist say creation occurred several thousand years ago and not billions of years ago. It's not consistant for the old earth guys to use that and then say the young earth people aren't allowed. Creation as a whole cannot be contemplated by scoence. They just give up and defer to a non-explanation of a point of singularity coming from nothing to EVERYTHING. You can't say Science cannot contemplate a supernatural thing. Everything coming from nothing is about as supernatural as you can get. It's only not supernatural when couched in terms of a "singulrity, whatever that really means. The "Supernatural" cannot support your premise all the while being denied the other side. I say creation, no matter how you couch it is God doing it and it's supernatural. Without God it wouldn't have happened, therefore very much a supernatural event, by you guy's account science cannot contemplate. If it can't contemplate it, let's all agree to leave science out, since science can't deal with a God caused event.
Jaime, Science has not established any reasonable explanation, so far as I know, for the cause of the big bang. And while that is an unknown, what happened immediately following is reasonably well formulated and consistent with known science. There is a lot that is not known and a lot yet to be determined, but thus far things are reasonably self-consistent.
If one assumes the Big Bang is synonymous with creation maybe so, but I do not. I think it is perfectly reasonable for God to have spoken into existence the world and universe we now know. If a singularity is scientifically reasonable and it is unprovable, then I have no problem with God speaking it all into existence as a scientific reality as we now know it. Since he exists outside of time, also not contemplatable to science, I see no reason that historical or geologic history couldn't have been compressed as well, also not contemplated by science. I see NO reason at all to contemplate a scientific explanation for anything related to creation, that we both agreed happened at the hand of a creator.
: Jaime Sun May 13, 2018 - 19:26:30I think it is perfectly reasonable for God to have spoken into existence the world and universe we now know.
Yes, you are correct. It is perfectly reasonable for God to have done that. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way.
But if He did make the world that way, and in doing so placed all that evidence in such a way so as to make it appear as the science explains it, then that seems to me to be a bit deceptive. Why would he have done that.
: JaimeIf a singularity is scientifically reasonable and it is unprovable, then I have no problem with God speaking it all into existence as a scientific reality as we now know it.
Let's be clear here. There is nothing scientifically reasonable about a singularity. Such do not exist in the real world. Singularities are simply a mental construct to describe a limit to which cannot be reached physically. That is precisely why so many scientists absolutely resisted the concept of the big bang as originally proposed. In fact the name "big bang" was given in mockery of the very idea.
: JaimeSince he exists outside of time, also not contemplatable to science,
But in fact such existence is contemplatable to science as is being outside of space. Science says that the universe is finite and nothing exists "outside" of the universe. Also, light actually exists outside of time. For the photon, time does not exist; light experiences no passage of time.
: JaimeI see NO reason at all to contemplate a scientific explanation for anything related to creation, that we both agreed happened at the hand of a creator.
The Christian "scientist" has no problem attributing creation to God. It is not that God did it that is the issue at all; rather it is how God did it that is the question. Notice that God does not say in Genesis that He created light. He says in Genesis 1:3.
" And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." So now if He didn't actually create light
ex nihilo, how did He do it. Science has a perfectly good explanation for that. Science tells us what happened when God said, "Let there be light". And science tells us when in the timeline that happened.
: Jaime Sun May 13, 2018 - 19:26:30
If one assumes the Big Bang is synonymous with creation maybe so, but I do not. I think it is perfectly reasonable for God to have spoken into existence the world and universe we now know. If a singularity is scientifically reasonable and it is unprovable, then I have no problem with God speaking it all into existence as a scientific reality as we now know it. Since he exists outside of time, also not contemplatable to science, I see no reason that historical or geologic history couldn't have been compressed as well, also not contemplated by science. I see NO reason at all to contemplate a scientific explanation for anything related to creation, that we both agreed happened at the hand of a creator.
Then how do you see the "evidence" that YEC provide? If God spoke everything into existence with ages already in place, then ALL YEC evidence is hogwash; as we already know.
What evidence is hogwash? I can't say that I am 100% YEC and am certainly not a Big Banger. How do we know it's hogwash if God spoke the world into existence pretty much as it exists today. Entire civilizations of no more than 3000 years are totally buried and lost now. The world changes and has changed even in a hard lined YEC view. It's no more hogwash than the elusive point of singularity that no one can prove in order to explain something science cannot contemplate. This whole discussion is retarded in my opinion. I remember why I avoided it for so long.
: Jaime Mon May 14, 2018 - 08:09:17What evidence is hogwash?
Jaime,
If God spoke into existence the universe and the world was we know it with all the indications of age as you say He did, then by definition there is no evidence. It just is and any indication of age, any age, must be discounted. So all the attempts by YEC to show, scientifically, that the universe is actually only 6000 years old is as useless as attempts by scientists to show, scientifically, that the universe is actually older.
As I said I am not 100% on board with all YEC assertions. And I not not at all on board with the Big Bang. I guess I am a hybrid. Most or all of my college professors in science were Big Bangers. I didn't buy it then or now. Again, if science can't contemplate the truth of a creator, the whole discussion is pointless. Just as what we consider the virgin birth or the resurrection. If God does something beyond the natural in the supernatural, there is no reason to apply or speak of science in that regard if science cannot contemplate God. I don't disagree with that, my bone of contention is there is science and then there is God. Trying to explain one in relation to the other IS pointless in my opinion.
It's like trying to explain the Red Sea crossing in the Exodus without putting God in the formula. There is no need to ascribe a natural explanation to every supernatural occurrence in the Bible, when God cannot be contemplated by science. The acts of God we read about should be taken as simply acts of God, and not muddied with attempts at scientific explanation, when science doesn't have an answer for God or the supernatural.
I'm OK with OEC or Some variation of YEC, it really doesn't matter with a supernatural variable in the equation.
Maybe though, the YEC assertions that "science is spawned by satan" is something that needs to be addressed, if it's neither here nor there in the Christian handbook then it is wrong to allude to such radical statements.
I certainly would not say that science is spawned by Satan, but I would say what I have already said, that this discussion mixing science and the supernatural is, to say the least.......unproductive, since neither has an explanation satisfctory to both. To say the Big Bang does that is a mistake or at least an unverifiable scientic notion. It may offer an hypothesis, but it is not a superior hypothesis in my opinion.
I've said enough here. It's starting to remind me of the baptism threads.
: Alan Mon May 14, 2018 - 11:30:02
Maybe though, the YEC assertions that "science is spawned by satan" is something that needs to be addressed, if it's neither here nor there in the Christian handbook then it is wrong to allude to such radical statements.
The assertion that "science is spawned by Satan" is just as stupid as the moronic statement that "evolution is a fact."
: Alan Mon May 14, 2018 - 11:30:02
Maybe though, the YEC assertions that "science is spawned by satan" is something that needs to be addressed, if it's neither here nor there in the Christian handbook then it is wrong to allude to such radical statements.
When science contradicts scripture, it is spawned by Satan.
: AVZ Mon May 14, 2018 - 11:49:46
When science contradicts scripture, it is spawned by Satan.
But it doesn't contradict scripture, that's just your spin on it.
: Jaime Mon May 14, 2018 - 10:37:43If God does something beyond the natural in the supernatural, there is no reason to apply or speak of science in that regard if science cannot contemplate God.
Almost nothing beyond the initiation of the big bang is supernatural. After that it is almost all quite natural and explainable with science, except for life from nonliving and the spirit of man. We don't know everything about what has happened after initiation, but we know a lot.
: JaimeIt's like trying to explain the Red Sea crossing in the Exodus without putting God in the formula. There is no need to ascribe a natural explanation to every supernatural occurrence in the Bible, when God cannot be contemplated by science. The acts of God we read about should be taken as simply acts of God, and not muddied with attempts at scientific explanation, when science doesn't have an answer for God or the supernatural.
We must not confuse everything that God does as being supernatural. He is capable of using the natural as well as the supernatural. Everything that God does does not have to violate the very laws and rules of nature that He created. Some do, most don't
: Alan Mon May 14, 2018 - 12:42:33
But it doesn't contradict scripture, that's just your spin on it.
Many scientists say that man evolved from monkeys.
What is your take on that? And do you see some conflict with what scripture says?
I don't know of any scientist who thinks humans evolved from monkeys. Monkeys are far too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans. Humans evolved from other hominines.
The assertion that "science is spawned by Satan" is just as stupid as the moronic statement that "evolution is a fact."
It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.
: 4WD Sun May 13, 2018 - 14:43:27
What evidence do you have of creation?
Strange, I thought you believed God created the world, just according to the theories of "scientists" not the plain testimony given in Exodus. Is this wrong? Do you deny creation altogether? Just exactly what are you arguing against, how God created, or if God created? Are you an atheist dabbling with God, or are you a "Christian" dabbling with atheist backed evolution? Did God create this world, and if so, why do you argue that there is no evidence for such? Isn't all the evidence you consider real, in relation to how you think God created this world?
: soterion Sun May 13, 2018 - 14:49:48
You should be a politician. You gave a response that didn't actually address a single thing I said. rofl
I answered the exact point and issue of your observation. You implied that there would not be such debate about this issue if the truth was so plain to see, I pointed out that Lucifer and many of the angels rejected the truth of God and the authority of His word while in the literal presence of His power and glory. One of the most prominent features of sin, is its astonishing denial of the truth right in front of its face. The scriptures themselves reveal and testify of this denial in fallen humanity over and over again, and demonstrate that it does not matter how conclusive anything is in this world of sin, it can and will be denied by the sinful heart unto willful delusion.
The obvious presumption attached to your friends observations regarding snowfall, is that each layer represents a year. According to scripture, it never even rained let alone snowed before the flood. The four seasons now common, did not exist before the flood. At creation humanity like the rest of life on this planet, did not wear clothes, an obvious indication of the mildness of pre-flood weather. As always your friend makes the same presumption most if not all "scientists" who deny creation do, which the bible warns against. The presumption that the world is much like it has always been for countless ages now, and all things continue as they always have with little to no change saving over deep deep time. This of course because they deny the truth of scripture regarding creation and the flood. Same old, same old, same old, same old. This issue is about faith built upon certain presumptions and where one will places it, and that is all!
: The Barbarian Wed May 16, 2018 - 15:24:17
It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.
Even if the statement were true, which it is not, it would amount to nothing in the way of denying YE creation. It would simply mean God created life with the ability to evolve, not that He created the world through the evolutionary process of deep time in contradiction to what He Himself has told us and written for us with His own hand. God is not subject to any theory of fallen humanity in any way shape or form concerning anything. You are in the box of His creation, He will never be in any box created by the observations of the fallen. To the contrary, any and all who try to confine Him to a box of their own understanding or creation are in danger of denying the testimony given by His chosen against the same.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them.
2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
: Amo Fri May 18, 2018 - 09:30:56He will never be in any box created by the observations of the fallen. To the contrary, any and all who try to confine Him to a box of their own understanding or creation are in danger of denying the testimony given by His chosen against the same.
Amo,
The terribly sad reality of that statement is that you don't even realize that describes you to a tee.
: 4WD Fri May 18, 2018 - 15:33:15
Amo,
The terribly sad reality of that statement is that you don't even realize that describes you to a tee.
Yes, sad little man that I am. Please do expound.
: Amo Fri May 18, 2018 - 09:09:53
I answered the exact point and issue of your observation. You implied that there would not be such debate about this issue if the truth was so plain to see, I pointed out that Lucifer and many of the angels rejected the truth of God and the authority of His word while in the literal presence of His power and glory. One of the most prominent features of sin, is its astonishing denial of the truth right in front of its face. The scriptures themselves reveal and testify of this denial in fallen humanity over and over again, and demonstrate that it does not matter how conclusive anything is in this world of sin, it can and will be denied by the sinful heart unto willful delusion.
The obvious presumption attached to your friends observations regarding snowfall, is that each layer represents a year. According to scripture, it never even rained let alone snowed before the flood. The four seasons now common, did not exist before the flood. At creation humanity like the rest of life on this planet, did not wear clothes, an obvious indication of the mildness of pre-flood weather. As always your friend makes the same presumption most if not all "scientists" who deny creation do, which the bible warns against. The presumption that the world is much like it has always been for countless ages now, and all things continue as they always have with little to no change saving over deep deep time. This of course because they deny the truth of scripture regarding creation and the flood. Same old, same old, same old, same old. This issue is about faith built upon certain presumptions and where one will places it, and that is all!
Here is a repost of part of what I had earlier shared with you:
I recall a geologist, telling of how he gained some degree, went to Antarctica and took part in a coring. He said they counted over 300,000 layers (whatevers), which indicated 300,000 winter and summer seasons- 300,000 years.
I don't believe there is any contradiction between a proper interpretation of the word of God and a proper interpretation of the physical evidence. But then, arriving at the proper interpretation, either way, is the problem. I don't know any other way to interpret 300,000 layers of seasons, than to say that there have been at least 300,000 years of seasons to result in those layers. ::shrug::
Here is why what you said doesn't make sense to me. The layers in the core are all uniform for the entire 300,000 years. If you are arguing for a ~6,000 year old earth, then that could not be the case. To fit your view of the earth, the top-most portion of the core would have the layers that indicate post-flood conditions, and then a different pattern below that which represents pre-flood conditions. Also, there wouldn't be 300,000 of anything to interpret as 300,000 years.
Now, I don't know exactly how all of that would look in a core sample, but I seriously doubt a 6,000 year old earth would result in 300,000 years of layers in a core that lead up to the relative present time.
That is why I said this:
Now I don't know if you hold to a ~6,000 year old earth, but many scientist would disagree with that idea, because of things like that core. Unless we want to say that God created false evidence of age into the earth that doesn't match up to the reality of its youth, then I would suggest that this issue is beyond our complete understanding.
In all fairness, I did forget to share something about that geologist with you. He is a creationist and he believes in the flood and everything else in the Bible. Also, he is not a uniformitarianist. Knowing that, I am sure that he had the understanding to take the flood and everything else the Bible says into account when looking at that core and striving to make sense of it.
I am not a scientist, so it is not up to me to make an accurate conclusion of all of this. I don't personally have a stake in how old or young the earth is. Does God require us to get that info exactly right? I doubt it. I would think acknowledging Him as the Creator of it all is enough.
: Amo Sat May 19, 2018 - 08:16:39Yes, sad little man that I am. Please do expound.
You repeatedly note that you and everyone else constitute the fallen. And if there is any box being built up around God and His creation process, it is certainly the YEC. A smaller and more confining box than that of the YEC would be hard to imagine.
: soterion Sat May 19, 2018 - 10:30:41
Here is a repost of part of what I had earlier shared with you:
Here is why what you said doesn't make sense to me. The layers in the core are all uniform for the entire 300,000 years. If you are arguing for a ~6,000 year old earth, then that could not be the case. To fit your view of the earth, the top-most portion of the core would have the layers that indicate post-flood conditions, and then a different pattern below that which represents pre-flood conditions. Also, there wouldn't be 300,000 of anything to interpret as 300,000 years.
Now, I don't know exactly how all of that would look in a core sample, but I seriously doubt a 6,000 year old earth would result in 300,000 years of layers in a core that lead up to the relative present time.
That is why I said this:
In all fairness, I did forget to share something about that geologist with you. He is a creationist and he believes in the flood and everything else in the Bible. Also, he is not a uniformitarianist. Knowing that, I am sure that he had the understanding to take the flood and everything else the Bible says into account when looking at that core and striving to make sense of it.
I am not a scientist, so it is not up to me to make an accurate conclusion of all of this. I don't personally have a stake in how old or young the earth is. Does God require us to get that info exactly right? I doubt it. I would think acknowledging Him as the Creator of it all is enough.
Assuming the creation and flood accounts are literal and true, we have no idea what happened with wether cycles just developing during the transition from the world as created, to the world transformed by the flood. We know from scripture that everything changed radically during and after the flood. It is only under the presumptuous influence that all things have remained the same for long ages which contradicts scriptural testimony, that the number of layers are presumed to indicate years as well. There may very well have been very rapid and intense snow falls and layering for many years at and after the flood. The earths weather patterns were in upheaval undergoing rapid and radical change. Again, apart from the testimony of God's word, all is but guess work built upon this or that presumption concerning things we just do not know.
: 4WD Sat May 19, 2018 - 10:58:45
You repeatedly note that you and everyone else constitute the fallen. And if there is any box being built up around God and His creation process, it is certainly the YEC. A smaller and more confining box than that of the YEC would be hard to imagine.
Only to those who consider God's word a restricting burden, rather than the liberating truth.
: Amo Sat May 19, 2018 - 17:53:43Only to those who consider God's word a restricting burden, rather than the liberating truth.
And again, Amo, you are the one who is placing your restricting burden on God's word. You have taken the Hebrew word
"yom" which can carry all manner of meanings depending upon the context and have declared that your interpretation is the only restricted meaning that can be applied.
The Liberating truth is to let God decide that. When He says that the heavens declare His handiwork, you say to Him, "No it does no such thing". You say to Him, "That is science and science is wrong".
: 4WD Sat May 19, 2018 - 19:12:41
And again, Amo, you are the one who is placing your restricting burden on God's word. You have taken the Hebrew word "yom" which can carry all manner of meanings depending upon the context and have declared that your interpretation is the only restricted meaning that can be applied.
The Liberating truth is to let God decide that. When He says that the heavens declare His handiwork, you say to Him, "No it does no such thing". You say to Him, "That is science and science is wrong".
And again 4WD, Baloney! God clearly pointed out what He meant in the creation account when reaffirming the same in giving of the fourth commandment to His own who acknowledge the truth of His words above their own thoughts and understanding. Your turn.
: Amo Sat May 19, 2018 - 17:51:57
Assuming the creation and flood accounts are literal and true, we have no idea what happened with wether cycles just developing during the transition from the world as created, to the world transformed by the flood. We know from scripture that everything changed radically during and after the flood. It is only under the presumptuous influence that all things have remained the same for long ages which contradicts scriptural testimony, that the number of layers are presumed to indicate years as well. There may very well have been very rapid and intense snow falls and layering for many years at and after the flood. The earths weather patterns were in upheaval undergoing rapid and radical change. Again, apart from the testimony of God's word, all is but guess work built upon this or that presumption concerning things we just do not know.
Well, the guy I'm talking about is a Christian, believes the whole Bible, and is an expert in geology. You want to come here and say that your interpretation of the Bible trumps his understanding of what it says and trumps his expertise in geology. ::pondering::
Don't you think that a geologist, who is also a Bible believing Christian, could and would have taken into account the variables you describe here? If he says the layers represent years, it is probably because core sampling all over the world reveals years the same way. It's not like they had to wing it on that particular occasion in Antarctica to understand how to read a core sample. If, on that occasion, the sample looked different in some way, that would have been taken into account.
If I had to pick who to listen to regarding this info, you or him, he is the easy choice. But then, I may have missed something about you that could make the difference. Are you an expert in geology, meteorology, or other related field that you can tell that guy he is wrong?
: soterion Sat May 19, 2018 - 20:01:14
Well, the guy I'm talking about is a Christian, believes the whole Bible, and is an expert in geology. You want to come here and say that your interpretation of the Bible trumps his understanding of what it says and trumps his expertise in geology. ::pondering::
Don't you think that a geologist, who is also a Bible believing Christian, could and would have taken into account the variables you describe here? If he says the layers represent years, it is probably because core sampling all over the world reveals years the same way. It's not like they had to wing it on that particular occasion in Antarctica to understand how to read a core sample. If, on that occasion, the sample looked different in some way, that would have been taken into account.
If I had to pick who to listen to regarding this info, you or him, he is the easy choice. But then, I may have missed something about you that could make the difference. Are you an expert in geology, meteorology, or other related field that you can tell that guy he is wrong?
Add to this the intensive study of climate change on this planet. Various sections of cores contain higher and lower concentrations of oxygen indicating extreme cold trends. The length of a given section and it's proximity in the core reveals when the climate change occurred and how long it lasted.
Cores have been dated to 800,000 years, within those samples many eras of climate change have been identified.
: soterion Sat May 19, 2018 - 20:01:14
Well, the guy I'm talking about is a Christian, believes the whole Bible, and is an expert in geology. You want to come here and say that your interpretation of the Bible trumps his understanding of what it says and trumps his expertise in geology. ::pondering::
Don't you think that a geologist, who is also a Bible believing Christian, could and would have taken into account the variables you describe here? If he says the layers represent years, it is probably because core sampling all over the world reveals years the same way. It's not like they had to wing it on that particular occasion in Antarctica to understand how to read a core sample. If, on that occasion, the sample looked different in some way, that would have been taken into account.
If I had to pick who to listen to regarding this info, you or him, he is the easy choice. But then, I may have missed something about you that could make the difference. Are you an expert in geology, meteorology, or other related field that you can tell that guy he is wrong?
Experts disagree and are wrong all over the place. This "expert" thinks this, that "expert" thinks that. An expert guess or theory about what cannot be observed is still just a guess or a theory. I believe the bible, agree with some ideas concerning things not addressed in scripture, and have some of my own ideas concerning the same. I would not however state any of them as fact short of observable evidence, or accepting God's word as truth, as I do. God gave us all brains to use for ourselves, simply submitting your understanding to everyone or anyone claiming to be, or claimed to be an expert, is not making good use of your brain as I see and understand it.
: Alan Sat May 19, 2018 - 22:49:16
Add to this the intensive study of climate change on this planet. Various sections of cores contain higher and lower concentrations of oxygen indicating extreme cold trends. The length of a given section and it's proximity in the core reveals when the climate change occurred and how long it lasted.
Cores have been dated to 800,000 years, within those samples many eras of climate change have been identified.
Only if certain presumed consistancies allowing for measurement are implemented. The violent and radical changes of a global flood the effects of which are unobservable and therefore unknowable make virtually impossible. This is not to mention the same presumptions regarding the unobservable past even if there have been long ages. Even apart from the flood of the bible, science itself reveals radical change in and of this world by observable plant and animal fossils, and geological formations and structuring.
Amo,
Are you an expert in geology, meteorology, or other related field that you can tell that guy he is wrong?
Are you an expert in any such field that you can discount any and everybody who are experts in their fields and, as Christians, who also believe the earth is very old? Just your interpretation of the Bible is not enough to tell other Christians who know their stuff regarding the earth and weather that they are wrong.
: Amo Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:05:42Only if certain presumed consistancies allowing for measurement are implemented.
A statement supercharged in ignorance of reality.
: Amo Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:05:42
Only if certain presumed consistancies allowing for measurement are implemented. The violent and radical changes of a global flood the effects of which are unobservable and therefore unknowable make virtually impossible. This is not to mention the same presumptions regarding the unobservable past even if there have been long ages. Even apart from the flood of the bible, science itself reveals radical change in and of this world by observable plant and animal fossils, and geological formations and structuring.
Are you an expert enough about how all of this works that you can demonstrate how to take seeming evidence of 300,000 years of time, or especially 800,000 years, and show how it can fit in a 6,000 year old earth? Christians who are also scientist know how to take such variables into consideration and they still arrive at these long time periods, but you still want to insult them all and claim that your viewpoint is correct and they are all wrong.
I want to know what your expertise is regarding all of this that your opinion is authoritative.
: Amo Sun May 20, 2018 - 15:57:48
God gave us all brains to use for ourselves, simply submitting your understanding to everyone or anyone claiming to be, or claimed to be an expert, is not making good use of your brain as I see and understand it.
No one of us has expertise in every field of science out there, and many are experts of none, but we depend so much on those sciences. If not, then you can reject all medicines and most medical practices, all modes of transportation, all entertainment and communication devices, etc.
Your quote above lacks practical application. We all have to trust somebody. You trust that you can communicate with others via the internet and on these forums. Reading core samples is an older science than the internet. I expect that coring is about as common as appendectomies are to doctors. Such readings not only yield info about the age of the earth, but can also be used to find fossil fuels and other resources, as well as revealing changes in climate and surface terrain in geological history.
I would think Christian scientist who are geologist know how to read a core sample, a common practice as common as appendectomies, and know how to read changes in patterns that reveal changes in surface and subsurface conditions. If they say 300,000 years of uninterrupted core sample, or even 800,000 years, then I have zero reason to doubt them.
If the only scientist you can trust are those who agree with your interpretation of the Bible, then that's fine. But, how do you know you can trust them any more than you can trust those who say the earth is old?
: soterion Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:15:48
Amo,
Are you an expert in geology, meteorology, or other related field that you can tell that guy he is wrong?
Are you an expert in any such field that you can discount any and everybody who are experts in their fields and, as Christians, who also believe the earth is very old? Just your interpretation of the Bible is not enough to tell other Christians who know their stuff regarding the earth and weather that they are wrong.
Same old junk. Is God's word true, or are supposed "experts" in this or that field which contradict the testimony of God's word true? Who has chosen these "experts" you speak of as "experts", as "experts"? Is it not the wisdom of this world that has chosen and acknowledges many of these supposed "experts" as such? What, are you some kind of self proclaimed "expert" concerning who actually is an "expert" whom all should submit to? Does someone studying this or that under the direct influence of another and accepting the presumptions their theories are built upon, equal an "expert" who cannot be refuted? Go to, bow to your chosen experts, I will bow to the word of God as the most reliable expert testimony in this world.
1 for 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
The world is filled with "experts", but the wisdom of this world is altogether vain. Submit to the word of God, test and prove all things accordingly, lest you fall prey to the supposed wisdom which is foolishness to God.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.There are experts of light, and there are experts of darkness. The former submits to the testimony of God, the latter to other testimony.
: 4WD Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:18:57
A statement supercharged in ignorance of reality.
A statement supercharged in the ignorance of those who chose the wisdom of this world above the wisdom of the testimony of God.
: soterion Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:24:53
Are you an expert enough about how all of this works that you can demonstrate how to take seeming evidence of 300,000 years of time, or especially 800,000 years, and show how it can fit in a 6,000 year old earth? Christians who are also scientist know how to take such variables into consideration and they still arrive at these long time periods, but you still want to insult them all and claim that your viewpoint is correct and they are all wrong.
I want to know what your expertise is regarding all of this that your opinion is authoritative.
No one has to be an expert to examine and critique the testimony of supposed "experts" for themselves. I am sorry you lack this motivation, and consider yourself to inferior to examine and judge the speculations of others claiming to be or claimed to be "experts" for yourself. I don't choose any experts to follow, save the expert testimony of the word of God which is not built upon the speculations of fallen humanity, but the direct inspiration of God. This is who and what I consider expert, not those schooled in the wisdom of this earth. We simply do not agree on who exactly is an expert, and apparently never will.
: soterion Sun May 20, 2018 - 16:51:43
No one of us has expertise in every field of science out there, and many are experts of none, but we depend so much on those sciences. If not, then you can reject all medicines and most medical practices, all modes of transportation, all entertainment and communication devices, etc.
Your quote above lacks practical application. We all have to trust somebody. You trust that you can communicate with others via the internet and on these forums. Reading core samples is an older science than the internet. I expect that coring is about as common as appendectomies are to doctors. Such readings not only yield info about the age of the earth, but can also be used to find fossil fuels and other resources, as well as revealing changes in climate and surface terrain in geological history.
I would think Christian scientist who are geologist know how to read a core sample, a common practice as common as appendectomies, and know how to read changes in patterns that reveal changes in surface and subsurface conditions. If they say 300,000 years of uninterrupted core sample, or even 800,000 years, then I have zero reason to doubt them.
If the only scientist you can trust are those who agree with your interpretation of the Bible, then that's fine. But, how do you know you can trust them any more than you can trust those who say the earth is old?
Total hogwash. None of the scientific advancements you state above are or ever were dependent upon the theory of evolution or deep time. These two are simply branches of scientific speculation and theory, not at all the base of science which all else is built upon. The science of all the advancements you mentioned are observable, testable, and applicable unto fact or fiction. Many mistakes have been made concerning them, which even resulted in death, but are able to be corrected because we can test, observe, and correct mistakes in relation to them. These sciences have nothing to do with, and are in no way dependent upon the speculative scientific theorizing of evolution and deep time. Neither of which can be tested and or observed apart from certain presumptions concerning unobservable conditions and or constants which themselves cannot be known or verified.
: Amo Fri May 25, 2018 - 09:26:46
Same old junk. Is God's word true, or are supposed "experts" in this or that field which contradict the testimony of God's word true? Who has chosen these "experts" you speak of as "experts", as "experts"?
Stop right there. How do you explain the findings of many experts that have never heard or seen the testimony of God's word? From my experience it is only YEC "experts" that bend the facts to suit there bias. The majority of researchers out there have no axe to grind with God and many do not even think about it, they're just working in their given field and recording the results, but when
you see those results you claim it to be a lie, which makes no sense whatsoever.
: Alan Fri May 25, 2018 - 10:16:25
Stop right there. How do you explain the findings of many experts that have never heard or seen the testimony of God's word? From my experience it is only YEC "experts" that bend the facts to suit there bias. The majority of researchers out there have no axe to grind with God and many do not even think about it, they're just working in their given field and recording the results, but when you see those results you claim it to be a lie, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Moot point. Regardless of what they have heard or not, presumptions must be made by anyone trying to explain that which was unobserved, and is unobservable. Identifying what the world is composed of and the order of that composition, cannot ever of itself concretely explain how it came to be. For now such remains in the realm of theory or faith.
: Amo Fri May 25, 2018 - 11:38:45
Moot point. Regardless of what they have heard or not, presumptions must be made by anyone trying to explain that which was unobserved, and is unobservable. Identifying what the world is composed of and the order of that composition, cannot ever of itself concretely explain how it came to be.
So collectively, all of these researchers are wasting their time and are reporting nothing but errors? That's amusing but at the same time very sad.
I believe God reveals Himself in at least three ways, 1) scripture, 2) answered prayer and other providential acts, and 3) the physical creation.
All three are subject to correct interpretation. If proper interpretation is accomplished, then there will be no contradiction between what the scriptures say in relation to the other two forms of revelation. Any contradiction is due to the improper interpretation of one or more of the three forms of revelation.
I see no good reason to reject any examination of points 2 and 3 to help determine God's hand at work for the good of mankind. If God did it, then it is good to look at it and give Him credit as we rejoice in His power and grace. But it has to begin with a proper understanding of the scriptures in relation to what we are looking at regarding God's providence and the creation.
I would suggest that if there is an overall rejection of sciences that conflict with one's interpretation of scripture, then maybe there is a problem with how the scriptures are being interpreted by that one. That should, at least, be considered.
: soterion Fri May 25, 2018 - 13:25:25I would suggest that if there is an overall rejection of sciences that conflict with one's interpretation of scripture, then maybe there is a problem with how the scriptures are being interpreted by that one. That should, at least, be considered.
Such is never considered by any of those promoting YEC positions. It is simply rejected out of hand.
: Alan Fri May 25, 2018 - 10:16:25
Stop right there. How do you explain the findings of many experts that have never heard or seen the testimony of God's word? From my experience it is only YEC "experts" that bend the facts to suit there bias. The majority of researchers out there have no axe to grind with God and many do not even think about it, they're just working in their given field and recording the results, but when you see those results you claim it to be a lie, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Brother,
There is one thing that all truth is based on, the Holy Word of YHWH! It matters not who has or has not read it, it remains
the only truth! Those that contend the Bible
contains have yet to show me the Heavenly Ordained Individual that can instruct us on what passages to keep in our Bible and which to burn and never read again.
And then there are the multiple assurances beginning with Duet 4:2 and after, I recall, once more in Deuteronomy there are other instances before the final instance at the end of Revelation 22. Couple all of that with 2Tim 3:16 and it is obvious, as bad as Satan does not want us to eat the Word that it remain alive in us and the best way to accomplish his goal, just chip, chip until there is only pwa gravel left. I wish you well but you are not right.
: th1b.taylor Fri May 25, 2018 - 22:50:06Brother,
There is one thing that all truth is based on, the Holy Word of YHWH! It matters not who has or has not read it, it remains the only truth!
I hesitate to call that a stupid statement because to do so will be seen as too harsh and demeaning. But in truth that is precisely what it is. God's word is indeed truth. But to say that God's word is the only truth is simply wrong. There are many things that are true and there are many truths that simply are not in God's word at all. For example prove from the Bible that the planet Mars exists; or prove that there is any planet in the entire universe except the earth. Or prove that water is just H
2O, or that there is even such a thing as a molecule of water.
: th1b.taylor Fri May 25, 2018 - 22:50:06
Brother,
There is one thing that all truth is based on, the Holy Word of YHWH! It matters not who has or has not read it, it remains the only truth! Those that contend the Bible contains have yet to show me the Heavenly Ordained Individual that can instruct us on what passages to keep in our Bible and which to burn and never read again.
And then there are the multiple assurances beginning with Duet 4:2 and after, I recall, once more in Deuteronomy there are other instances before the final instance at the end of Revelation 22. Couple all of that with 2Tim 3:16 and it is obvious, as bad as Satan does not want us to eat the Word that it remain alive in us and the best way to accomplish his goal, just chip, chip until there is only pwa gravel left. I wish you well but you are not right.
I agree that there is only one truth, it is also revealed to us by the natural which God has left for us to observe. He knew in His creation of mankind that we would be curious and inquisitive, for Him to purposely plant false blueprints to our existence makes no sense whatsoever. You simply cannot see past a fundamental belief, much the same as those that countered the heliocentric system to which we now know is undeniably true, fundamentalists were forced to reconsider their views much the same as fundamentalists will be forced to accept evolution when it can be explained and proven without a reasonable doubt.
: Alan Fri May 25, 2018 - 12:04:31
So collectively, all of these researchers are wasting their time and are reporting nothing but errors? That's amusing but at the same time very sad.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.............................................................................................
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.They are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of truth because they reject the testimony of God's word in favor of their own theories and speculations which contradict the same. They are lovers of self more than lovers of God, trusting their own inclinations over the word of God. Therefore in the end yes, they have wasted their time and effort to support theories and speculations which will be found untrue when God returns and reveals the accuracy of His word. In the mean time, they may be praised and exalted as the expert purveyors of truth by fallen humanity in rebellion against the testimony of God's word.
: soterion Fri May 25, 2018 - 13:25:25
I believe God reveals Himself in at least three ways, 1) scripture, 2) answered prayer and other providential acts, and 3) the physical creation.
All three are subject to correct interpretation. If proper interpretation is accomplished, then there will be no contradiction between what the scriptures say in relation to the other two forms of revelation. Any contradiction is due to the improper interpretation of one or more of the three forms of revelation.
I see no good reason to reject any examination of points 2 and 3 to help determine God's hand at work for the good of mankind. If God did it, then it is good to look at it and give Him credit as we rejoice in His power and grace. But it has to begin with a proper understanding of the scriptures in relation to what we are looking at regarding God's providence and the creation.
I would suggest that if there is an overall rejection of sciences that conflict with one's interpretation of scripture, then maybe there is a problem with how the scriptures are being interpreted by that one. That should, at least, be considered.
If by that you mean the rejection of deep time and the theory of evolution built upon the same, then you simply call theory factual established science, which it is not. You can of course suggest whatever you wish, but this will never make what you suggest so. A majority choosing one theory over another, will never make said theory scientific fact. Nor does the history of humanity support in ay way shape or form the idea that the majority are usually right.
: Alan Sat May 26, 2018 - 18:23:12
I agree that there is only one truth, it is also revealed to us by the natural which God has left for us to observe. He knew in His creation of mankind that we would be curious and inquisitive, for Him to purposely plant false blueprints to our existence makes no sense whatsoever. You simply cannot see past a fundamental belief, much the same as those that countered the heliocentric system to which we now know is undeniably true, fundamentalists were forced to reconsider their views much the same as fundamentalists will be forced to accept evolution when it can be explained and proven without a reasonable doubt.
First, the Catholic Church which denied the heliocentric system is not fundamentalist. To the contrary it declares all fundamentalists as violent terrorists whether they practice violence or not. Second, the bible does not deny the heliocentric system it simply does not specifically address the issue at all. Even today while most know and believe the earth rotates and revolves around the sun, we still refer to sunset and sunrise as though the sun is moving around us instead of the rotation of the earth causing the same. References in scripture concerning this observation are from observable human perspective, not scientific study and or explanation in relation to the same. The creation account on the other hand, though not a scientific explanation, is addressing exactly the time frame and procedure of the same. Which account is backed up and verified by other scriptures concerning the same.
UH OH.
You may have to throw another word in with creation and evolution. Maybe it's also "alienation". (a little different meaning than the norm)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/scientists-claim-octopuses-came-from-outer-space/vi-AAxrArI?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz
: geronimo Sun May 27, 2018 - 06:58:44
UH OH.
You may have to throw another word in with creation and evolution. Maybe it's also "alienation". (a little different meaning than the norm)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/scientists-claim-octopuses-came-from-outer-space/vi-AAxrArI?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz
Well, the source is MSN. Enough said. rofl
Barbarian observes:
It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.
Even if the statement were true,
And it's true. Perhaps you don't know what evolution means. What do you think it means?
it would amount to nothing in the way of denying YE creation.
The Bible does that nicely. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by the Bible.
It would simply mean God created life with the ability to evolve
Of course He did. He is the Creator, after all.
Evolution is consistent with his word, but not with the modern doctrine of YE creationism.
God is not subject to any theory of fallen humanity in any way shape or form concerning anything.
Fortunately, He doesn't care if you accept the way He did it. It's not a salvation issue.
You rely on your own understanding, but those who try to confine Him to a box of their own understanding or creation are in in no danger of losing their salvation, unless they try deny salvation to those who accept the way He did things.
First, the Catholic Church which denied the heliocentric system is not fundamentalist.
No pope ever denied the heliocentric system ex cathedra. That was never the doctrine of the Catholic Church. However, it was the doctrine of both Martin Luther and Calvin.
To the contrary it declares all fundamentalists as violent terrorists whether they practice violence or not.
Well, let's take a look...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
You've been badly misled about that.
Second, the bible does not deny the heliocentric system it simply does not specifically address the issue at all.
Calvin and Luther disagree with you. Would you like me to show you?
: The Barbarian Sun May 27, 2018 - 18:33:43
Barbarian observes:
It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.
And it's true. Perhaps you don't know what evolution means. What do you think it means?
The Bible does that nicely. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by the Bible.
Of course He did. He is the Creator, after all.
Evolution is consistent with his word, but not with the modern doctrine of YE creationism.
Fortunately, He doesn't care if you accept the way He did it. It's not a salvation issue.
You rely on your own understanding, but those who try to confine Him to a box of their own understanding or creation are in in no danger of losing their salvation, unless they try deny salvation to those who accept the way He did things.
Yes, I understand the faith you have chosen in relation to the fact that things can and do change. This is not the theory of evolution though, regardless of your word games. Evolution as the cause or method of our existence has not and cannot be observed. All of course are free to exercise faith in the theory in direct contradiction to biblical testimony, if they wish. Contrary to claims from "Christian" evolutionists or the Roman Catholic Church, no one needs them to correctly understand God's testimony to humanity.
You continue to spout off claims already proved to be untrue. YE creationism is not new, and you know that as everyone else on these boards who can read does as well, if they were willing to view the evidence against this unfounded claim. It is no surprise therefore, that you ignore all other evidence which contradicts your pet theory.
Just exactly what are you saved from in Christ Jesus Barbarian, if death is not the result of sin, but the natural process of evolution through which God created the world? Please do give us a coherent explanation of your gospel from the beginning including the evolution you claim the bible supports and or teaches. If you cannot do this, why would any believe your gospel?
: Amo Mon May 28, 2018 - 10:15:29
Just exactly what are you saved from in Christ Jesus Barbarian, if death is not the result of sin, but the natural process of evolution through which God created the world? Please do give us a coherent explanation of your gospel from the beginning including the evolution you claim the bible supports and or teaches. If you cannot do this, why would any believe your gospel?
I don't know about you, but I am saved from my own sins and a resulting spiritual death. I have no responsibility for anything Adam did, nor can Adam's sin have any effect upon my spiritual well being. God has made that abundantly clear. If you think that the entire universe was turned upside down and physical death came as a result of something Adam did, then please give us a coherent explanation of how that happened. What was the specific mechanism to bring about such a monstrous change in God's creation. Who do you think has the ability to change God's creation? Where did such ability come from?
: The Barbarian Sun May 27, 2018 - 23:19:16
No pope ever denied the heliocentric system ex cathedra. That was never the doctrine of the Catholic Church. However, it was the doctrine of both Martin Luther and Calvin.
Well, let's take a look...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
You've been badly misled about that.
Calvin and Luther disagree with you. Would you like me to show you?
Yes, we know of your tendency to deny all that contradicts the faith you have chosen and choose to follow. Yes, I would like to see what Calvin and Luther believed in relation to heliocentrism thank you. Of course their views were no doubt influenced by the Catholic Church having both been members of the same before they came out. While they both came out and refuted much of Catholicism, neither of them gave up all of Rome's erroneous teachings. Observe the following.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves
More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.
With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo's house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77.
The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history's great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican's formal acknowledgement of an error, moreover, is a rarity in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith.
At the time of his condemnation, Galileo had won fame and the patronage of leading Italian powers like the Medicis and Barberinis for discoveries he had made with the astronomical telescope he had built. But when his observations led him to proof of the Copernican theory of the solar system, in which the sun and not the earth is the center, and which the Church regarded as heresy, Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition. Forced to Recant
By the end of his trial, Galileo was forced to recant his own scientific findings as "abjured, cursed and detested," a renunciation that caused him great personal anguish but which saved him from being burned at the stake.
Since then, the Church has taken various steps to reverse its opposition to Galileo's conclusions. In 1757, Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" was removed from the Index, a former list of publications banned by the Church. When the latest investigation, conducted by a panel of scientists, theologians and historians, made a preliminary report in 1984, it said that Galileo had been wrongfully condemned. More recently, Pope John Paul II himself has said that the scientist was "imprudently opposed."
"We today know that Galileo was right in adopting the Copernican astronomical theory," Paul Cardinal Poupard, the head of the current investigation, said in an interview published this week.
This theory had been presented in a book published in 1543 by the Polish scientist Nicolaus Copernicus in opposition to the prevailing theory, advanced by the second-century astronomer Ptolemy, that the Sun and the rest of the cosmos orbited the Earth. But the contest between the two models was purely on theoretic and theological grounds until Galileo made the first observations of the four largest moons of Jupiter, exploding the Ptolemaic notion that all heavenly bodies must orbit the Earth.
In 1616, the Copernican view was declared heretical because it refuted a strict biblical interpreation of the Creation that "God fixed the Earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever." But Galileo obtained the permission of Pope Urban VIII, a Barberini and a friend, to continue research into both the Ptolemaic and the Copernican views of the world, provided that his findings drew no definitive conclusions and acknowledged divine omnipotence.
But when, in 1632, Galileo published his findings in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," the work was a compelling endorsement of the Copernican system.
Summoned to Rome for trial by the Inquisition one year later, Galileo defended himself by saying that scientific research and the Christian faith were not mutually exclusive and that study of the natural world would promote understanding and interpretation of the scriptures. But his views were judged "false and erroneous." Aging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633.
Because of his advanced years, he was permitted house arrest in Siena. Legend has it that as Galileo rose from kneeling before his inquisitors, he murmured, "e pur, si muove" -- "even so, it does move."
Well, let's take a look...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
The above does not address Christian Fundamentalists.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pope+declares+all+fundamentalists+violent&view=detail&mid=DB9E484C7AC8131677A2DB9E484C7AC8131677A2&FORM=VIRE
: 4WD Mon May 28, 2018 - 10:26:17
I don't know about you, but I am saved from my own sins and a resulting spiritual death. I have no responsibility for anything Adam did, nor can Adam's sin have any effect upon my spiritual well being. God has made that abundantly clear. If you think that the entire universe was turned upside down and physical death came as a result of something Adam did, then please give us a coherent explanation of how that happened. What was the specific mechanism to bring about such a monstrous change in God's creation. Who do you think has the ability to change God's creation? Where did such ability come from?
Not the person I asked, or what I asked for, typical though. Let me do what you apparently will not , that is, answer your question with conclusive statements from scripture. Which of course you will deny and or ignore.
1. Gen 2:15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree or they would die.
2. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons
The devil said they wouldn't die, they did eat the fruit God told them not to eat, and death entered the world through this sin. God immediately implemented the plan of salvation which gave Adam and Eve and all of humanity a time of probation to choose that salvation over the death they deserved to die for disobeying God. Genesis does not speak of spiritual death as you do, you add this to support your own understanding, which in turn supports that which you add to Genesis as well to support evolution. Death of course includes the end of body and spirit.
3. 1 Cor 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.Death came upon humanity through Adam, not evolution. In Adam's disobedience all die, but in Christ's obedience all shall be made alive. All life immediately following the fall in the garden is in Christ alone. Apart from His sacrifice humanity would have ended in the garden. All owe their lives to Him, and only those who acknowledge this will receive the gift of eternal life so often promised for the same in scripture.
4. 2 Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge,
that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Christ died for all, because apart from Him all were dead.
5. Rom 5:12 Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death entered the world through sin. The sin of Adam and Eve, not the process of evolution which the bible does not address at all but blatantly contradicts.
6. Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Again, the wages of sin is death. Your theory of evolution makes death one of the key mechanisms of producing life. This is not biblical at all, but contradicts the bible's testimony.
7. Jms 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived,
it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.Sin brought and brings forth death. Death was not part of God's creation which your theory of evolution denies. To the contrary, your theory requires numberless deaths to produce the life which God declares he brought about without and apart from death in His word. Please do expound upon your views regarding the gospel of Jesus and salvation in relation to your theory of evolution regarding death in particular.
: Amo Mon May 28, 2018 - 14:10:13
Not the person I asked, or what I asked for, typical though. Let me do what you apparently will not , that is, answer your question with conclusive statements from scripture. Which of course you will deny and or ignore.
1. Gen 2:15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from a certain tree or they would die.
In verse 17 God says, "
in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Amo, that is precisely what happened. They sinned; they died spiritually in that day; in that very instant. There is nothing there that says anything about their dying physically from eating the fruit. In fact they lived, according to Scripture, hundreds more years. None of that has anything to do with physical death. The two are totally unrelated.
And since you do not understand what God has said in Genesis 2:15-17 the rest of what you posted is simply all screwed up. I could go through each of your points but since you do not understand the truth that physical death is a result of creation and spiritual death is a result of sin and the two are unrelated it would serve no purpose -- you wouldn't understand.
Yes, I understand the faith you have chosen in relation to the fact that things can and do change.
In science we depend on evidence, not faith. Creationism is faith in man's doctrines. Science only deals in evidence.
This is not the theory of evolution though, regardless of your word games.
Perhaps you haven't learned what evolution is. What do you think it is?
Evolution as the cause or method of our existence
Nope. That's not it.
It's not about what God says to Humanity, either. As Everett Dirkson remarked, people are most often down on things they aren't up on.
You continue to spout off claims already proved to be untrue.
I can show you whatever you'd like to challenge.
YE creationism is not new
It was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.
Many evangelicals in America believe that young earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin's theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Youngearth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.
The fundamentalist movement takes its name from an ambitious project called The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola) that defined the fundamentals of Christianity. In response to modernist preachers and theologians who rejected many traditional Christian ideas, including miracles, the resurrection and the reality of heaven, the authors of the 90 tracts that became
The Fundamentalsaffirmed traditional biblical beliefs. The project was so successful that it produced an entire wing of Christianity, known as fundamentalism, which persists to this day.
The contributors to The Fundamentals were the leading conservative Christian leaders at the time, men like R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, united in their belief in traditional doctrines like the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, the reality of miracles and heaven, and God as the creator of everything. But they were not united in rejecting evolution as a mechanism of creation. And there was no rejection of the scientific research that indicated that the earth was far older than 10,000 years.
The "Advent" of Scientific Creationism The most consistent creationist voice at the beginning of the 20th century belonged to the new Seventh-day Adventist movement, which looked to the mid-nineteenth century prophetic writings of Ellen White for guidance. What we call young-earth creationism today—as promoted by Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Researchand other groups—can be traced back to one of White's visions.
https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf
and you know that as everyone else on these boards who can read does as well, if they were willing to view the evidence against this unfounded claim.
It's quite true, and is very well documented. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all fundamentalists were OE creationists. That was the form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for instance. YE creationism is a very modern revision of Scripture.
Just exactly what are you saved from in Christ Jesus Barbarian, if death is not the result of sin,
God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. But Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If that "death" was a physical one, God did not tell the truth. It was a spiritual death, which is what Christ came to save us from. If he died to keep us from physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. But it wasn't a physical death, but a spiritual death.
Please do give us a coherent explanation of your gospel from the beginning including the evolution you claim the bible supports and or teaches.
Show me where I said the Bible teaches about evolution. The Bible is silent about things like electricity, evolution, atoms, nuclear fusion, and the like. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. If one reduces it to a science text, one loses the message completely.
Let God be God, and listen to what He's actually telling you.
Well, let's take a look...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
The above does not address Christian Fundamentalists.
It does if Christian Fundamentalists "lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour." My experience with them, is that the vast majority of them do. So they do qualify as Christians as much as any other part of the Body of Christ.
There may be exceptions, but I don't think they are very common. Most of them love God as much as Catholics or Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox Christians do.
Yes, I would like to see what Calvin and Luther believed in relation to heliocentrism thank you.
Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don't know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who's pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, "Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding."
And so I think that we can learn from nonbelieving scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation. So I have a high view of natural revelation is what I'm saying.
In this section of his response, Dr. Sproul is reminding us that Christians in the past have believed erroneous ideas about the nature of God's creation because they believed those views were taught in Scripture. He specifically mentions geocentricity – the idea that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary earth.
This understanding of the universe had been articulated most thoroughly by Ptolemy (ca. AD 90 – ca. AD 168) and had been accepted by Christians for fifteen hundred years because they believed it was taught in passages such as Joshua 10:12–14 and the many passages that refer to the sun's rising or setting. Like most Christians (and scientists) of their day, Martin Luther and John Calvin believed geocentrism to be a true description of God's creation.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/luther-calvin-and-copernicus-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/
There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."
Martin Luther
In the Catholic Church, to qualify as a doctrine of the Church, it must be either promulgated
ex cathedra by the pope, or by the bishops in council. Although there were clerics (like the ones who condemned Galileo) who asked that this be done, neither the bishops nor successive popes would do this.
And yes, Luther and Calvin were badly mistaken in their theology, just like the Catholic clerics who prosecuted Galileo.
But it never became a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.
from dust we came to dust we will return
from dust we came to dust we will return
Like all animals, this is true. But we are more than our bodies.
Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Longfellow
: 4WD Mon May 28, 2018 - 15:14:25
In verse 17 God says, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Amo, that is precisely what happened. They sinned; they died spiritually in that day; in that very instant. There is nothing there that says anything about their dying physically from eating the fruit. In fact they lived, according to Scripture, hundreds more years. None of that has anything to do with physical death. The two are totally unrelated.
And since you do not understand what God has said in Genesis 2:15-17 the rest of what you posted is simply all screwed up. I could go through each of your points but since you do not understand the truth that physical death is a result of creation and spiritual death is a result of sin and the two are unrelated it would serve no purpose -- you wouldn't understand.
Hogwash! The bible is filled with references from one end to the other people dying and death in relation to their physical death. The truth is the exact opposite if what you are espousing. It is physical death that the scriptures address the great majority of the time death is referred to, spiritual death is the exception which is usually identified as the same in the context of that being addressed. Please do supply the scriptures which state that death is the result of creation. This is a lie.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...........................
17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.).................................
21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Why did Jesus die literal death for our sins if the only death produced by sin is spiritual death? What was He saving us from by literally dying? If Creation produced death, then why do the above verses say sin produces death? Why doesn't Paul explain that he is only referring to spiritual death if that truly is the case?
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?
for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.If creation produces death, then why does scripture say sin produces death so often, and why are those who are new creations in Christ Jesus have eternal life? According to your false doctrine, all the saved n Christ Jesus who are new creatures in Him, should die since creation produces death. That's just silly.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual:
but I am carnal, sold under sin.It is sin that works death within, not creation.
1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Did man create himself? No. Death came by or through man, not creation. Man sinned unto death, spiritual and literal. Your teaching is biblically unsound.
Jms 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived,
it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.Sin brings forth or produces death, not creation. How many times and ways does scripture need to tell you this? Here we are, show us the scriptures which say God's creation brings forth death.
: The Barbarian Mon May 28, 2018 - 16:46:59
Well, let's take a look...
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
It does if Christian Fundamentalists "lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour." My experience with them, is that the vast majority of them do. So they do qualify as Christians as much as any other part of the Body of Christ.
There may be exceptions, but I don't think they are very common. Most of them love God as much as Catholics or Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox Christians do.
So which of your Pope's is right, Pope Paul VI in 1964, or Pope Francis now?
: The Barbarian Mon May 28, 2018 - 16:43:17
In science we depend on evidence, not faith. Creationism is faith in man's doctrines. Science only deals in evidence.
Perhaps you haven't learned what evolution is. What do you think it is?
Nope. That's not it.
It's not about what God says to Humanity, either. As Everett Dirkson remarked, people are most often down on things they aren't up on.
I can show you whatever you'd like to challenge.
It was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.
Many evangelicals in America believe that young earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin's theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Youngearth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.
The fundamentalist movement takes its name from an ambitious project called The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola) that defined the fundamentals of Christianity. In response to modernist preachers and theologians who rejected many traditional Christian ideas, including miracles, the resurrection and the reality of heaven, the authors of the 90 tracts that became
The Fundamentalsaffirmed traditional biblical beliefs. The project was so successful that it produced an entire wing of Christianity, known as fundamentalism, which persists to this day.
The contributors to The Fundamentals were the leading conservative Christian leaders at the time, men like R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, united in their belief in traditional doctrines like the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, the reality of miracles and heaven, and God as the creator of everything. But they were not united in rejecting evolution as a mechanism of creation. And there was no rejection of the scientific research that indicated that the earth was far older than 10,000 years.
The "Advent" of Scientific Creationism
The most consistent creationist voice at the beginning of the 20th century belonged to the new Seventh-day Adventist movement, which looked to the mid-nineteenth century prophetic writings of Ellen White for guidance. What we call young-earth creationism today—as promoted by Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Researchand other groups—can be traced back to one of White's visions.
https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf
It's quite true, and is very well documented. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all fundamentalists were OE creationists. That was the form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for instance. YE creationism is a very modern revision of Scripture.
God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. But Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If that "death" was a physical one, God did not tell the truth. It was a spiritual death, which is what Christ came to save us from. If he died to keep us from physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. But it wasn't a physical death, but a spiritual death.
Show me where I said the Bible teaches about evolution. The Bible is silent about things like electricity, evolution, atoms, nuclear fusion, and the like. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. If one reduces it to a science text, one loses the message completely.
Let God be God, and listen to what He's actually telling you.
Same rubbish over and over. Your scientists are not God, what they say is not what God is telling anyone. Bible believing Jews and Christians have believed in the six day creation recorded in Genesis all throughout their histories.
: Amo Sat Jun 02, 2018 - 13:46:57
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...........................
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.).................................
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Why do you "original sin types" always emphasize the first half of those sentences when it is the second half that Paul emphasized?
What Paul is pointing out there that whatever you think was the result of Adam's disobedience, Jesus' obedience nullified it. Whatever you think was the result of one man's offence, MUCH MORE was the result of one man's obedience. If original sin was to be the result of Adam's disobedience, the it was negated by Jesus' obedience.
Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men,
even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. Do you not understand that this sets aside any thought of original sin or total depravity. What Jesus did, among other things, was establish original grace. This passage does not speak of the effect of your sins, Amo; it is speaking about the effect of Adam's sin which Paul says was completely set aside.
Paul then proceeds, in chapter 6, to describe how the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus death can effect your sins.
: AmoThe bible is filled with references from one end to the other people dying and death in relation to their physical death. The truth is the exact opposite if what you are espousing. It is physical death that the scriptures address the great majority of the time death is referred to, spiritual death is the exception which is usually identified as the same in the context of that being addressed. Please do supply the scriptures which state that death is the result of creation. This is a lie.
You are probably correct that most of the time that death is spoken of in the Bible, it is speaking of physical death. But when speaking of the effects death in relation sin, it is almost always speaking of spiritual death:
"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked...." (Eph 2:1-2). For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23) Clearly here Paul is comparing spiritual death and spiritual life. For if the death that Paul is speaking about here is physical death, then by the same argument, the eternal life must be a physical one. And we know that is not the case:
"Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor 15:50).
: The Barbarian Mon May 28, 2018 - 16:43:17
In science we depend on evidence, not faith.
That reveals a lot. In science, you depend on evidence, not faith. This common saying comes to mind "to see is to believe". And this seems to be the motto of the worldly, opposite to what I'd say is for the heavenly, that is, "to believe is to see".
: Michael2012 Sat Jun 02, 2018 - 21:02:20
That reveals a lot. In science, you depend on evidence, not faith. This common saying comes to mind "to see is to believe". And this seems to be the motto of the worldly, opposite to what I'd say is for the heavenly, that is, "to believe is to see".
Yes, but the universe is not the heavenly. And things of the universe are not the heavenly. With respect to the physical, your "to believe is to see" gave us Earth, Wind, Fire and Water of ancient Greece as the four major elements.
: 4WD Sat Jun 02, 2018 - 14:44:12
Why do you "original sin types" always emphasize the first half of those sentences when it is the second half that Paul emphasized?
What Paul is pointing out there that whatever you think was the result of Adam's disobedience, Jesus' obedience nullified it. Whatever you think was the result of one man's offence, MUCH MORE was the result of one man's obedience. If original sin was to be the result of Adam's disobedience, the it was negated by Jesus' obedience.
Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Do you not understand that this sets aside any thought of original sin or total depravity. What Jesus did, among other things, was establish original grace. This passage does not speak of the effect of your sins, Amo; it is speaking about the effect of Adam's sin which Paul says was completely set aside.
Paul then proceeds, in chapter 6, to describe how the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus death can effect your sins.
You are probably correct that most of the time that death is spoken of in the Bible, it is speaking of physical death. But when speaking of the effects death in relation sin, it is almost always speaking of spiritual death: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked...." (Eph 2:1-2).
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23) Clearly here Paul is comparing spiritual death and spiritual life. For if the death that Paul is speaking about here is physical death, then by the same argument, the eternal life must be a physical one. And we know that is not the case: "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor 15:50).
I'm not debating original sin, or total depravity. You are correct that what Jesus did nullified what Adam did, but you are incorrect concerning the timing of what he did, and the type of death He saved humanity from.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.Do you really believe that Adam and Eve's sin, caught God by surprise or off guard? To the contrary, this world was created and chosen by God as the place where the rebellion which began in heaven would be played out revealing both the mystery of Godliness, and the mystery of iniquity.
The plan of salvation was laid from the foundation of the world. Nor was there ever a time when God did not know, anticipate, and prepare for it. The only reason Adam and Eve did not literally die when they disobeyed God, was because the plan was already in place from eternity. They were saved from literal death which is death of body, soul, and spirit because Jesus Christ was and is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of this world.
1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:Humanity was and is saved from literal death of body, soul, and spirit in Christ Jesus not as an afterthought or reaction to sin, but according to God's eternal purpose in and through Christ Jesus our Lord and King. The second death that all whose names are not written in the book of life will die is indeed this death which God said would occur if Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. The devil denied this, which you and countless others deny with him as well to this very day. The probationary time allotted to humanity in and through the salvation provided by our Lord Jesus Christ, is for the sole purpose of choosing life or death. Immortality is the gift of God to the saved, not the natural condition of humanities bodies, souls, or spirits. The wicked will perish, body, soul, and spirit. All who teach and preach otherwise are promoting the teachings of the evil one's first lie to humanity in defiance of God's word.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Your use of 1 Cor 15:50 to deny Paul is speaking of the literal death of body, soul, and spirit, in Rom 6:23 is a despicable example of taring scripture out of context to support ones own views. Our natural sinful and perishable bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, this is exactly why we are raised with new spiritual bodies unto eternal life. There is a natural corrupted body, and there is a spiritual body. Jesus came to crucify the former, that all who choose to be in Him might inherit the latter. Go back and read that entire chapter, and then tell yourself Paul is only speaking of spiritual death and resurrection. Take the scriptures as a whole brother, stop hand picking verses which support what you want to believe when taken out of their original context, and submit to the original context and the rest of scripture as a whole.
1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption 43 It is sown in dishonour;
it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness;
it is raised in power 44 It is sown a natural body;
it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.Please stop changing the original intent and meaning of Paul's words unto your own desires, this is not spiritually healthy at all.
1 Thess 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.Did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ rise as a spirit without a body that could be seen and felt? No He did not, and neither will we. Did He come just to die a spiritual death, no He did not, He came to die the literal death of body, soul, and spirit which sin demands. He came to taste death for every man, and that death included body, soul, and spirit. He was raised from the dead for every man, and that resurrection included body, soul, and spirit. Please stop denying scripture after scripture after scripture to support your own unbiblical views. This is very unhealthy, and you do it right from the beginning regarding creation, life, death, and sin throughout into the NT. Why will you deny the literal death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and those of His followers as well?
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you 27 Then saith he to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
: Amo Sun Jun 03, 2018 - 09:21:23I'm not debating original sin, or total depravity. You are correct that what Jesus did nullified what Adam did, but you are incorrect concerning the timing of what he did, and the type of death He saved humanity from.
I hate to rain on your parade but you will not be saved from physical death. You will die, unless Jesus returns before that happens.
: AmoDo you really believe that Adam and Eve's sin, caught God by surprise or off guard?
No, of course not. And I have never said that nor ever suggested that.
The plan of salvation was laid from the foundation of the world. Nor was there ever a time when God did not know, anticipate, and prepare for it. The only reason Adam and Eve did not literally die when they disobeyed God, was because the plan was already in place from eternity. They were saved from literal death which is death of body, soul, and spirit because Jesus Christ was and is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of this world.
Sorry, but Adam was not saved from the death of the body.
Gen_5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
: AmoHumanity was and is saved from literal death of body, soul, and spirit in Christ Jesus not as an afterthought or reaction to sin, but according to God's eternal purpose in and through Christ Jesus our Lord and King. The second death that all whose names are not written in the book of life will die is indeed this death which God said would occur if Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. The devil denied this, which you and countless others deny with him as well to this very day. The probationary time allotted to humanity in and through the salvation provided by our Lord Jesus Christ, is for the sole purpose of choosing life or death. Immortality is the gift of God to the saved, not the natural condition of humanities bodies, souls, or spirits. The wicked will perish, body, soul, and spirit. All who teach and preach otherwise are promoting the teachings of the evil one's first lie to humanity in defiance of God's word.
That is just plain weird; as is all the rest of that poppy cock.
But quite frankly so much of what you post here is little more than wild imagination.
So which of your Pope's is right, Pope Paul VI in 1964, or Pope Francis now?
They are in agreement on the doctrine expressed herein:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
The plan of salvation was laid from the foundation of the world. Nor was there ever a time when God did not know, anticipate, and prepare for it. The only reason Adam and Eve did not literally die when they disobeyed God, was because the plan was already in place from eternity. They were saved from literal death which is death of body, soul, and spirit because Jesus Christ was and is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of this world.
Sorry, but Adam was not saved from the death of the body. Gen_5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
::amen!::
: 4WD Sat May 26, 2018 - 07:22:19
I hesitate to call that a stupid statement because to do so will be seen as too harsh and demeaning. But in truth that is precisely what it is. God's word is indeed truth. But to say that God's word is the only truth is simply wrong. There are many things that are true and there are many truths that simply are not in God's word at all. For example prove from the Bible that the planet Mars exists; or prove that there is any planet in the entire universe except the earth. Or prove that water is just H2O, or that there is even such a thing as a molecule of water.
Ah... the sweetness of belief in self. I recall it well but the end there-of is so bitter and except YHWH breaks a Man's pride as a potter crushing an ugly, unprofitable vessel and remaking it/him, there can be no profit and certainly, no man can effect any change thereof.
: th1b.taylor Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 14:19:50
Ah... the sweetness of belief in self. I recall it well but the end there-of is so bitter and except YHWH breaks a Man's pride as a potter crushing an ugly, unprofitable vessel and remaking it/him, there can be no profit and certainly, no man can effect any change thereof.
So it is true; you do not think that Mars exists. Interesting. And you don't believe there are such things as molecules. Also interesting. And it all tells us quite a bit about th1b.taylor; probably doesn't have a very good grasp of the world around him and perhaps not a very good grasp of much else either.
: 4WD Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 15:29:40
So it is true; you do not think that Mars exists. Interesting. And you don't believe there are such things as molecules. Also interesting. And it all tells us quite a bit about th1b.taylor; probably doesn't have a very good grasp of the world around him and perhaps not a very good grasp of much else either.
My only response here is why would you be so anxious to propose to press forward three such stark ad obvious Satanic Lies? Are you perhaps ill? Before this I have3 detected no signs of insanity, what's wrong and why do you see text that is not there and is not only lies but was never imagine3d by any saqne and logical thinking person. Or can I deduce you are following your god the god of this world? I pray not.
: th1b.taylor Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 18:48:43Or can I deduce ......?
You seem incapable of truthfully or accurately deducing anything.
: 4WD Sun Jun 03, 2018 - 12:56:06
I hate to rain on your parade but you will not be saved from physical death. You will die, unless Jesus returns before that happens.
No, of course not. And I have never said that nor ever suggested that.
The plan of salvation was laid from the foundation of the world. Nor was there ever a time when God did not know, anticipate, and prepare for it. The only reason Adam and Eve did not literally die when they disobeyed God, was because the plan was already in place from eternity. They were saved from literal death which is death of body, soul, and spirit because Jesus Christ was and is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of this world.
Sorry, but Adam was not saved from the death of the body. Gen_5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
That is just plain weird; as is all the rest of that poppy cock.
But quite frankly so much of what you post here is little more than wild imagination.
Yes, you certainly are a master of the obvious. You are the one denying physical death here, not me. I care nothing for your child or reverse psychology. Nevertheless, I understand your need to support your arguments with faulty premise, seeing they are all built upon the same. You are faulty, God's word is not. You should lean a lot more on latter and a lot less on the former.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.All of humanity is on probation. As sin brought death upon humanity through Adam, so righteousness brought justification and life upon humanity through Christ Jesus our lord. Now all must choose between the two in this life before they die as appointed due to sin, then they will face judgment. All will be raised, some unto the resurrection of life, others to the resurrection of damnation.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.This is not rocket science, or overly complicated. It only becomes increasingly complicated as deception and self get in the way of and begin to take priority over the testimony of the word of God. Humanity was not created to die, thus the tree of life. Sin brought death through disobedience, thus humanities removal from access to the tree of life.
Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims,
and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.How does the above testimony fit in with your self inspired spiritual death alone theory? If humanity would have lived forever even in sin if they continued to have access to the tree of life, then how could death have been part of the original plan as your self inspiration dictates? I know, just more of the ever increasing scriptural testimony you must reject and or ignore to believe as you wish.
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
The saved will have eternal life once again, for they will have the right to eat from the tree of life once again. The wicked though, will die the second death in the lake of fire. Sin produces death, and they chose sin over justification in and through the righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.Do you really think you can spend your entire life contradicting the testimony of Jesus and God's word in defense of the word of "Scientists" and then walk into heaven and partake of the tree of life? I think, you should think again.
Mt 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.Is your theory of evolution the word of God above scripture? To the contrary, the theory requires that you deny or ignore large amounts of scripture. The creation account backed up by the fourth commandment, the entrance of death due to sin, that death being real and literal not just spiritual, the tree of life no doubt, the global flood assuredly, just to name a few. Denying all of these of course ends up denying much more scriptural testimony in relation to the same, increasingly nullifying the effect of the testimony of the word of God. Such could hardly it seems, be said to exemplify living "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". Unless of course evolutionary scientists testimony is the word of God. Do you consider their words, the word of God?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
: Amo Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 09:32:26As sin brought death upon humanity through Adam, so righteousness brought justification and life upon humanity through Christ Jesus our lord.
First, Amo, sin brings spiritual death, not physical death. Second. you ascribe sin and death to all humanity through Adam, do you similarly ascribe justification and life upon all humanity through Christ? I suspect not. For obviously you think that Adam's sin has a much more profound effect upon humanity than did Christ's righteousness. 'Tis a real pity.
: Amo Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 09:32:26Do you really think you can spend your entire life contradicting the testimony of Jesus and God's word in defense of the word of "Scientists" and then walk into heaven and partake of the tree of life? I think, you should think again.
Spoken like the one who thinks that he is Jesus' surrogate judge; really pathetic that anyone should think so highly of himself. But apparently you do.
: 4WD Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 05:44:22
You seem incapable of truthfully or accurately deducing anything.
WOW! The Spirit of Hate and Lying is powerful here today with you and the only Mod I can recall posting here. I ask a responsible question of you and you, immediately slap me with a Satanic response. You are in serious need of Spiritual Inventory, a thing that only you can do for yourself but the Liar's/Hater's Spirit is great here today.
: 4WD Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 10:21:12
Spoken like the one who thinks that he is Jesus' surrogate judge; really pathetic that anyone should think so highly of himself. But apparently you do.
Not at all true! He has read Matthew 7:1 and continued to read that he might never rape scripture by forcing verse one into the bed the world forces it into. Again, I pray you do a Personal Spiritual Inventory instead of reporting me for some imagined slap.
: th1b.taylor Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 12:25:25
WOW! The Spirit of Hate and Lying is powerful here today with you and the only Mod I can recall posting here. I ask a responsible question of you and you, immediately slap me with a Satanic response. You are in serious need of Spiritual Inventory, a thing that only you can do for yourself but the Liar's/Hater's Spirit is great here today.
You accuse me of idolatry and then think my reaction concerning your deductive abilities or lack thereof is from "the Spirit of Hate and Lying"?? You have got to be joking. Either that or you are one of the more self-righteous persons to show up here in a while.
: 4WD Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 14:31:05
You accuse me of idolatry and then think my reaction concerning your deductive abilities or lack thereof is from "the Spirit of Hate and Lying"?? You have got to be joking. Either that or you are one of the more self-righteous persons to show up here in a while.
I asked you one question, you twisted the question around in your head and went off like an Explosive .177 caliber BB pretending to be a 175mm Tactical Nuke Shell on me and now you wish to pretend Self Righteousness and impugn me without cause or case as being Self Righteous for following The Triune God Head and His Holy Truths as found in His Holy Bible?
There is issue here, that's true.
: th1b.taylor Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 17:41:58
I asked you one question, you twisted the question around in your head and went off like an Explosive .177 caliber BB pretending to be a 175mm Tactical Nuke Shell on me and now you wish to pretend Self Righteousness and impugn me without cause or case as being Self Righteous for following The Triune God Head and His Holy Truths as found in His Holy Bible?
There is issue here, that's true.
Without Cause?? You accused me of idolatry. As far as I am concerned, that is about the worst accusation that one can make against anyone.
[Quote from: th1b.taylor on Yesterday at 18:48:43]
Or can I deduce ......?
You seem incapable of truthfully or accurately deducing anything.[/quote]
[Quote from: 4WD on Today at 05:44:22]
You seem incapable of truthfully or accurately deducing anything.
WOW! The Spirit of Hate and Lying is powerful here today with you and the only Mod I can recall posting here. I ask a responsible question of you and you, immediately slap me with a Satanic response. You are in serious need of Spiritual Inventory, a thing that only you can do for yourself but the Liar's/Hater's Spirit is great here today.[/quote]
[Quote from: 4WD on Today at 10:21:12]
Spoken like the one who thinks that he is Jesus' surrogate judge; really pathetic that anyone should think so highly of himself. But apparently you do.
Not at all true! He has read Matthew 7:1 and continued to read that he might never rape scripture by forcing verse one into the bed the world forces it into. Again, I pray you do a Personal Spiritual Inventory instead of reporting me for some imagined slap.[/quote]
[Quote from: th1b.taylor on Today at 12:25:25]
WOW! The Spirit of Hate and Lying is powerful here today with you and the only Mod I can recall posting here. I ask a responsible question of you and you, immediately slap me with a Satanic response. You are in serious need of Spiritual Inventory, a thing that only you can do for yourself but the Liar's/Hater's Spirit is great here today.[/quote]
You accuse me of idolatry and then think my reaction concerning your deductive abilities or lack thereof is from "the Spirit of Hate and Lying"?? You have got to be joking. Either that or you are one of the more self-righteous persons to show up here in a while.
I have troubled myself to research this little gem and believe even a child can figure who is who in this chain and thus did not concern myself with tagging. Having reviewed yours as well as my posts, you ran your locomotive off the rails and dragged every car of that train down the slop with you. Please, where is this accusation you are ragging like a Mad Man over? I see where you slandered me!
Barbarian observes:
In science we depend on evidence, not faith.
That reveals a lot.
Yep. Science is, by its very methodology, limited to the physical universe. It turns out that evidence is the best way to learn about that. Science is too weak a method to use faith.
In science, you depend on evidence, not faith.
Yep. When it comes to God, faith works. In science, it doesn't work.
This common saying comes to mind "to see is to believe".
As they say, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."
And this seems to be the motto of the worldly, opposite to what I'd say is for the heavenly, that is, "to believe is to see".
You're confusing faith with science. Having faith in a flat Earth, or in the Sun orbiting the Earth isn't such a good thing.
Having faith in God is exactly the right thing.
Think about it. If you do, I'm sure you'll see why.
: The Barbarian Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 21:36:45
As they say, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."
Who are they?
I know you'd say you trust in God. And I presume you take scriptures as basically God's word.
Now scriptures say with regards the physical universe that you say science deals about, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Do you trust God in this and believe that?
If you do, do you believe without need of scientific evidence?
Scriptures say:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Do you believe that?
Verse 3 says that ALL things were made through Him (the Word), and that WITHOUT Him (the Word) NOTHING was made that was made.
How do you take this truth?
: th1b.taylor Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 21:20:56I have troubled myself to research this little gem and believe even a child can figure who is who in this chain and thus did not concern myself with tagging. Having reviewed yours as well as my posts, you ran your locomotive off the rails and dragged every car of that train down the slop with you. Please, where is this accusation you are ragging like a Mad Man over? I see where you slandered me!
You conveniently didn't present your post where you accused me of Satanic lies and not following God but another god of this world.
: th1b.taylor Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 18:48:43
My only response here is why would you be so anxious to propose to press forward three such stark ad obvious Satanic Lies? Are you perhaps ill? Before this I have3 detected no signs of insanity, what's wrong and why do you see text that is not there and is not only lies but was never imagine3d by any saqne and logical thinking person. Or can I deduce you are following your god the god of this world? I pray not.
You have a good day.
: 4WD Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 10:15:57
First, Amo, sin brings spiritual death, not physical death. Second. you ascribe sin and death to all humanity through Adam, do you similarly ascribe justification and life upon all humanity through Christ? I suspect not. For obviously you think that Adam's sin has a much more profound effect upon humanity than did Christ's righteousness. 'Tis a real pity.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
I'm not the one between us consistently denying that scripture means what it simply states. Now you wrongly accuse me of doing what you commonly practice. The scripture says that the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ brought justification of life upon all men, all humanity. That is exactly what it did, and that is exactly why Adam and Eve did not die when they disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Jesus Christ is the LAMB of God who was slain from the foundation of the world. It is only because of the justification supplied by Him from the foundation of the world that humanity did not end in sin in the Garden, and all can now choose and must choose whom they serve. Those who reject this justification in Christ Jesus by rejecting Him, will die the second death in the lake of fire, which is death indeed of body, soul, and spirit. Tis a real pity you consistently deny that scripture says what it simply states, and wrongly accuse others of doing the same.
: Amo Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 13:06:21
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
I'm not the one between us consistently denying that scripture means what it simply states. Now you wrongly accuse me of doing what you commonly practice. The scripture says that the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ brought justification of life upon all men, all humanity. That is exactly what it did, and that is exactly why Adam and Eve did not die when they disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Jesus Christ is the LAMB of God who was slain from the foundation of the world. It is only because of the justification supplied by Him from the foundation of the world that humanity did not end in sin in the Garden, and all can now choose and must choose whom they serve. Those who reject this justification in Christ Jesus by rejecting Him, will die the second death in the lake of fire, which is death indeed of body, soul, and spirit. Tis a real pity you consistently deny that scripture says what it simply states, and wrongly accuse others of doing the same.
What Paul is telling you there is that whatever it was that you think resulted from Adam's disobedience was negated by Jesus' obedience. So if you think that Adam's sin brought imputed sin upon mankind at birth, you are wrong because Jesus' sacrifice brought righteousness upon mankind at birth. How long that righteousness maintained depends upon when you committed your first sin.
: 4WD Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 10:21:12
Spoken like the one who thinks that he is Jesus' surrogate judge; really pathetic that anyone should think so highly of himself. But apparently you do.
More reverse psychology. I believe the words of the bible and Jesus Christ, and place more faith in them than the testimony of scientists whose testimony contradicts the same. This you call thinking so highly of one's self as to be Jesus' surrogate judge, while those who contradict the straight testimony of scripture and Jesus Christ are of course perfectly fine in doing so. They are not thinking to highly of themselves in rejecting the testimony of God's word in favor of their own opinions, but those who believe God's word as it states are. Are you not testifying that all who contradict the word of God in favor of placing their own personal thoughts and convictions above the same, are the real righteous judges in this world? If you being a professed "Christian" can and do contradict the word of God by redefining the obvious simple meaning of it, who are you or anyone else to ever tell another they are wrong in their own personal interpretation or rejection of scripture altogether? When we undermine the standard, there is no longer any standard but ourselves. This is the original sin.
: 4WD Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 13:16:18
What Paul is telling you there is that whatever it was that you think resulted from Adam's disobedience was negated by Jesus' obedience. So if you think that Adam's sin brought imputed sin upon mankind at birth, you are wrong because Jesus' sacrifice brought righteousness upon mankind at birth. How long that righteousness maintained depends upon when you committed your first sin.
You are confusing justification and sanctification. God has provided salvation through justification, but He will not force justification or sanctification(righteousness) upon anyone. All will choose it for themselves or not in this life. This is the probation of humanity offered by God unto salvation for all who choose life in Christ. We are all born in sin, which is why all the saved must be born again in Christ Jesus. Why Baptism represents the death and burial of the old man in Christ, and the resurrection or rebirth of the new man in Christ Jesus.
Ps 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.Paul understood fallen human nature very well.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual:
but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am!
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
We all have Adams fallen nature, but we have all been given the opportunity to change this situation in this life which was itself provided by the Grace of God though His Son Jesus Christ the LAMB of God slain from the foundation of the world.
: Amo Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 13:46:15
You are confusing justification and sanctification. God has provided salvation through justification, but He will not force justification or sanctification(righteousness) upon anyone.
I haven't confused anything. I understand quite well the difference between justification and sanctification. In fact either justification nor sanctification is in view in Romans 5:12-19. What is in view there is not what was the result of the sins of mankind, but rather what was the result of the sin of Adam. Even though God had strongly spoken out against the view of anyone being condemned for another's sin (Ezek 18), nevertheless it was a common view among the Jews (John 9) that such did happen. Paul is declaring here that was not the case and in fact any such thinking that mankind was tainted by Adam's sin, and that we are condemned by Adam's sin was negated by Jesus' obedience.
: AmoPs 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
If there is any iniquity to be found there it was David's mother, not David. Moreover, if you insist that passage purports to establish original sin upon one at birth, the by verse 7 in that same passage, the cure is to be purified with hyssop and washed.
Psa 51:7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. I am curious -- have you purified yourself with hyssop? I suspect not.
: AmoWe all have Adams fallen nature, but we have all been given the opportunity to change this situation in this life which was itself provided by the Grace of God though His Son Jesus Christ the LAMB of God slain from the foundation of the world.
Romans 5:12-19 doesn't say anything about any opportunity to change anything. It says that through His obedience, Jesus changed it for everyone. So instead of coming into this world condemned through Adam's sin, we come into this world pure and righteous through Jesus' obedience. What we do once we are old enough and intelligent enough to understand law [right from wrong] and the consequences for doing wrong then when we do sin, we die spiritually, that is we become dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-2). Notice there in Ephesians 2 nothing is said about Adam's trespasses and sins -- only our trespasses and sins.
Barbarian observes:
As they say, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."
Who are they?
People who believe in God.
I know you'd say you trust in God. And I presume you take scriptures as basically God's word.
Now scriptures say with regards the physical universe that you say science deals about, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
You'll admit that much, but you won't accept the way He did it. Why is that a problem for you? If you have faith in God, why not accept all of it?
Do you see that science can't say what caused the universe to be, but you can know it by faith. Science can't find that kind of truth, but scientists can. And when you understand why, you'll know why we reserve faith for God alone.
You're having some difficulty with the idea that He created different things in different ways. Let Him be God, and accept it as it is.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 15:56:22
Barbarian observes:
As they say, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."
Quote
Who are they?People who believe in God.
I believe in God. I trust God. But I don't say that everything else needs evidence.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 15:56:22
Quote
I know you'd say you trust in God. And I presume you take scriptures as basically God's word.
Now scriptures say with regards the physical universe that you say science deals about, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
You'll admit that much, but you won't accept the way He did it. Why is that a problem for you? If you have faith in God, why not accept all of it?
Do you see that science can't say what caused the universe to be, but you can know it by faith. Science can't find that kind of truth, but scientists can. And when you understand why, you'll know why we reserve faith for God alone.
You're having some difficulty with the idea that He created different things in different ways. Let Him be God, and accept it as it is.
The way He did it? Do you, as a scientist know how God created the heavens and the earth? I doubt it. Even the most brilliant scientist you know, and all scientist combined wouldn't know that. You only think you know. But the truth is, no scientist can.
I don't have any difficulty in the matter of God creating all things. Though I do find it arrogance for one to say that he or they know the way God did it more than what God said in scriptures.
You say that "Science can't find that kind of truth, but scientists can." So do you suppose scientist can find the truth on how God created the heavens and the earth? You claim you are a scientist. Perhaps you believe that you know how God did it. So, can you tell this board how God created the heavens and the earth? Of course I take what you have to say on this as with certainty and not merely a guess.
You said "Let Him be God, and accept it as it is." I accept it as it is, but not as it is as scientist say it, but how scriptures say as it is. I think your statement here goes to you and to the rest of the science world.
The matter with the world of science today, particularly the Christian scientists, is that they seem to be forgetful of who God is. That God is the author and sustainer of life. That whether life on earth will be good or not for one, depends not on anything or anyone else, but God. That the sons of God must not walk according to the course of this world, conducting themselves in the lusts of their flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and
of the mind. Rather, they must walk according to the Spirit, conducting themselves in the things of the Spirit.
The way He did it? Do you, as a scientist know how God created the heavens and the earth?
I know how He created the diversity of living things. And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.
I don't have any difficulty in the matter of God creating all things.
Then why not just accept the way He did it.
Though I do find it arrogance for one to say that he or they know the way God did it more than what God said in scriptures.
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
Barbarian observes:
Do you see that science can't say what caused the universe to be, but you can know it by faith. Science can't find that kind of truth, but scientists can. And when you understand why, you'll know why we reserve faith for God alone.
You say that "Science can't find that kind of truth, but scientists can."
Yep.
So do you suppose scientist can find the truth on how God created the heavens and the earth?
Nope. I pointed out that we can find the truth that God did it.
You claim you are a scientist.
Several prominent universities have attested to that, yes.
Perhaps you believe that you know how God did it.
As I said, I know that God created the universe. Do you not? I also know how He created the diversity of living things on Earth.
So, can you tell this board how God created the heavens and the earth?
Go back and read it again, carefully. That should do it. Hint: Who said "let there be light?"
You said "Let Him be God, and accept it as it is." I accept it as it is, but not as it is as scientist say it, but how scriptures say as it is.
Apparently not. You are a YE creationist, are you not? Do you not believe that the Earth brought forth living things? If you do believe what He said, then you cannot accept the life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism.
The matter with the world of science today, particularly the Christian scientists, is that they seem to be forgetful of who God is.
Rather, it is YE creationists are unwilling to accept what God is. He's much greater and wiser than they find acceptable.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 21:06:56
The way He did it? Do you, as a scientist know how God created the heavens and the earth?
I know how He created the diversity of living things. And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.
How did He? Did He tell you how He did it? Or are you saying that through science, you came to know how God did it? Of course, that would be since you convinced yourself that it is how God did it. But are you saying for certain that that is how God did it? If not, why not say that that is just your guess instead of saying you know that that is how God did it? That's not being truthful I should say.
Just to mention, I also know that God created the diversity of living things. And that because it is revealed in scriptures.
On your statement
"And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.", I would have to object. God did not create life Sir, much less, created life using nature. Unless you are referring to a different god than my God who is revealed in the Bible.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 21:06:56
I don't have any difficulty in the matter of God creating all things.
Then why not just accept the way He did it.
Of course I accept whatever God says as written in His scriptures, and that without difficulty at all. What I do not accept or perhaps have difficulty accepting is what man tells me about the matter of God creating all things which is not in His scriptures or which is beyond what is written in scriptures. And so I accept that God created all things and created all things by the power of His Word. When one tells me that this is how God did it and all, such as evolution and all, must I just accept what they say, more so about what God purposely did not reveal of such things in scriptures?
Scientists may be right, but they they could equally be wrong. So, I don't really put much weight and time on such matters, much less take issue on such. I'd rather spend my time and life knowing God and His will as revealed in scriptures. And I don't see anywhere in scriptures which have God telling me to live my life in search of how He created the physical world and how things work. What is all over scriptures is how I should live my life in fellowship with Him and loving my neighbor.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 09, 2018 - 21:06:56
Though I do find it arrogance for one to say that he or they know the way God did it more than what God said in scriptures.
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
That's your opinion and feeling I have to say, not mine. I don't see God saying anything of that in scriptures either.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
I borrowed the above link from Tex's thread concerning evolution 100 to 200k. The scientific data and or evidence presented is far more in line with creation than evolution, though the article itself does not go their. Deep time theory takes another blow, but those of this religious faith will of course not be daunted.
: Amo Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 07:59:54
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
I borrowed the above link from Tex's thread concerning evolution 100 to 200k. The scientific data and or evidence presented is far more in line with creation than evolution, though the article itself does not go their. Deep time theory takes another blow, but those of this religious faith will of course not be daunted.
Ah yes, you won't be daunted, but you will likely be wrong.
I haven't confused anything. I understand quite well the difference between justification and sanctification. In fact either justification nor sanctification is in view in Romans 5:12-19. What is in view there is not what was the result of the sins of mankind, but rather what was the result of the sin of Adam. Even though God had strongly spoken out against the view of anyone being condemned for another's sin (Ezek 18), nevertheless it was a common view among the Jews (John 9) that such did happen. Paul is declaring here that was not the case and in fact any such thinking that mankind was tainted by Adam's sin, and that we are condemned by Adam's sin was negated by Jesus' obedience.
Yes I know of your ability to deny what scripture says right in front of your face, but I'm going to put it right in front of your face again by way of exposing that denial.
Rom 5:1Therefore
being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
The chapter opens with the topic of justification.
Rom 5:9 Much more then,
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Continues with the theme.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.Continues in the verses you say have nothing to do with it.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.Continues in the same chapter after the verses you deny have anything to do with it. The entire chapter is about the justification of all humanity in Christ Jesus as opposed to the condemnation of all humanity in Adam. Which condemnation leads to death. You are in denial of the wrods right in front of your face.
The entire bible including prophecies encompassing the entire history of this world up to Christ's second coming is in relation to humanities fall in the garden, and God's plan to restore us to our original created condition. We are not the same as we were before the fall, knowing good and evil now through practical experience, and inheriting a fallen nature in need of salvation. We were separated from the tree of life because we had changed into a condition that God will not sustain, short of us accepting His salvation which itself requires being changed back into the image of God in which we were created. God will not force this change upon anyone, we must choose it for ourselves. We had nothing to do with the decision and actions Adam made which condemned us, and we had nothing to do with the decision and actions our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ made to save us which has justified all unto this probationary life. Now we must choose submission to God again, or not. This is the plain and simple truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Lord and Savior broke this message down to its simplest form for us with the following words.
1 Joh 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
You cannot understand these basic biblical truths because you have chosen to believe a lie. Having done so you must order your theology accordingly. Death is not the result of creation as you falsely claim, it is the result of sin. It is not just spiritual as the literal death of everyone testifies, and the warning of the second death testifies as well. Adam and Eve were not just saved from spiritual death, and neither is the rest of humanity. The unsaved will perish, and humanity would have perished immediately after the fall in the Garden if the plan of salvation had not already been laid by divine foresight, and implemented immediately after the fall. Life is in Christ Jesus alone, all who choose to be outside of Him will not have life at all in any form.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Apart from Christ humanity is condemned because our deeds are evil. Our deeds are evil because the evil one is more powerful than we are alone, and apart from willing submission to Christ we will submit to the evil one. This is the authority over us that our parents gave the evil one when they believed and obeyed him over and above God.
: Amo Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 09:42:12Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
So who in your opinion is not one of the
all men in that verse upon whom came the free gift unto Justification of life?
If there is any iniquity to be found there it was David's mother, not David. Moreover, if you insist that passage purports to establish original sin upon one at birth, the by verse 7 in that same passage, the cure is to be purified with hyssop and washed. Psa 51:7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. I am curious -- have you purified yourself with hyssop? I suspect not.
No, I have not purified myself with hyssop according to old covenant types and shadows. I am washed in and by the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses of all sin.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood,Rev 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation,
and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.1 Joh 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Yet again, I understand your ability to deny what scripture right in front of your face is saying. So let's put it right in front of your face again.
Ps 51:1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out
my transgressions 2 Wash me throughly from
mine iniquity, and cleanse me from
my sin 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me 4 Against thee, thee only,
have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest 5 Behold,
I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom 7
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean:
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face
from my sins, and blot out all
mine iniquities.The entire context of the scriptures quoted are in relation to David's sin and sins, not his mothers. He is not addressing his mothers or anyone else's sins or condition of sin. To the contrary he is confessing his own sin problem and the extent of it which goes all the way back to his birth, because he was born with the same sinful fallen nature that all of us are which we inherited from Adam and Eve. I am not speaking of the doctrine of original sin as in we are guilty for their actual sin, only in that we inherited their sinful nature which apart from Christ is doomed to sin. We are born with a propensity to sin, which is why we all need salvation from this mortal and corrupted state of being of the flesh, into the immortal sons and daughters of God according to the Spirit. Sin brings forth death, and we are all sinners. All sinners will die. They may choose that death in Christ unto a new creature, or choose to remain old creatures of the flesh and die the second death in the lake of fire.
: 4WD Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 13:10:04
So who in your opinion is not one of the all men in that verse upon whom came the free gift unto Justification of life?
None. All humanity has been given this life to choose whom they will serve unto eternal life or eternal damnation. We only have this life by the grace of God through His Son, for the exact purpose of accepting His grace unto eternal life through Jesus Christ His only begotten Son.
Romans 5:12-19 doesn't say anything about any opportunity to change anything. It says that through His obedience, Jesus changed it for everyone. So instead of coming into this world condemned through Adam's sin, we come into this world pure and righteous through Jesus' obedience. What we do once we are old enough and intelligent enough to understand law [right from wrong] and the consequences for doing wrong then when we do sin, we die spiritually, that is we become dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-2). Notice there in Ephesians 2 nothing is said about Adam's trespasses and sins -- only our trespasses and sins.
The above is a false gospel. Jesus did change everything for everybody, He gave us all this life to make the right choice, which we would not have apart from the plan of salvation. If we were born into this world born again new creatures in Christ Jesus, then we would have no need to be born again by choice when old enough to comprehend such and make the choice. Children are sinners just like the rest of us as is obvious, they are simply more innocent because of ignorance. There would be no need to crucify the old man as Paul clearly testifies all must do in the very next chapter of Romans. Take the scriptures as a whole and submit to God's teachings, don't slice and dice the testimony to fit your own model.
Rom 6:6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Spiritual death is what all must die in Christ in order to be saved, not what Adam and Eve died when they ate from the forbidden tree, or the death God said they would die if they did so. You have added this to the word of God, the Genesis account says no such thing, nor does Paul in reference to the death God said humanity would die if they disobeyed Him. To the contrary, the sacrifice of Christ from the foundation of the world is the only thing that allowed Adam and Eve and all the rest of humanity to still be spiritual after the fall, by faith in God's word. Apart from it none would ever have had any power over sin and death. Because of it all the saved have walked in the spirit by faith. Those of the old covenant looking forward to salvation in Christ, and us of the new covenant looking back to salvation in Christ and Him crucified.
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
You are dead wrong, no pun intended, to suggest that references to death in scripture and even Paul's writings is only referring to spiritual death unless the context specifically denotes the same. As already stated, the vast majority of references to death in the scriptures and even in Paul's writings are in references to literal physical death which includes body, soul, and spirit. This truth simply does not allow for your amalgamation of scripture and evolutionary theory, therefore you fight against it.
: Amo Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 15:04:16Take the scriptures as a whole and submit to God's teachings, don't slice and dice the testimony to fit your own model.
There are few who post here who slice and dice the testimony to fit their own model that you, Amo, beginning with any adherence to the false teachings of Ellen G. White.
I borrowed the above link from Tex's thread concerning evolution 100 to 200k. The scientific data and or evidence presented is far more in line with creation than evolution,
The data, showing that most species living today, appered 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, clearly supports creation and evolution. Of course, it completely rules out YE creationism, but those of this religious faith will of course not be daunted.
It was Darwin's point that species have a limited time, and this discovery confirms his theory once again.
Barbarian observes:
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
That's your opinion
Being a Christian is not an opinion. It's a faith. However, it's not debatable as to whether or not we have the mind and curiosity to find out things for ourselves. It's obviously true. If you're claiming God didn't give those to us, who did?
and feeling I have to say, not mine. I don't see God saying anything of that in scriptures either.
I don't see God saying anything about giving us electricity in scripture, either. Do you have a point, and if so, who did give us electricity?
: The Barbarian Fri Jun 08, 2018 - 21:36:45
Barbarian observes:
In science we depend on evidence, not faith.
Yep. Science is, by its very methodology, limited to the physical universe. It turns out that evidence is the best way to learn about that. Science is too weak a method to use faith.
Yep. When it comes to God, faith works. In science, it doesn't work.
As they say, "In God we trust; everything else needs evidence."
You're confusing faith with science. Having faith in a flat Earth, or in the Sun orbiting the Earth isn't such a good thing.
Having faith in God is exactly the right thing.
Think about it. If you do, I'm sure you'll see why.
And you are and always have been desperately trying to reframe the issue. Science, based on evidence compared to the Truth of God's Word and then reconciled to and with YHWH's message to us is perfect but the very instant that Primary Comparison is lost or ignored, that person has strolled into Satan's Parlor. You and to many others have been operating from there for a long, long time and are in need of godly retreat.
: th1b.taylor Mon Jun 11, 2018 - 11:12:05
And you are and always have been desperately trying to reframe the issue. Science, based on evidence compared to the Truth of God's Word and then reconciled to and with YHWH's message to us is perfect but the very instant that Primary Comparison is lost or ignored, that person has strolled into Satan's Parlor. You and to many others have been operating from there for a long, long time and are in need of godly retreat.
You need to stop with your satan charges against others, that's just not acceptable here.
: Alan Mon Jun 11, 2018 - 11:15:57
You need to stop with your satan charges against others, that's just not acceptable here.
I do not charge anyone with anything, I do not carry enough snot for such a thing. All I can do is to observe and report what I see and pray our LORD convicts of the sin unto Salvation through Faith.
: th1b.taylor Mon Jun 11, 2018 - 14:49:49
I do not charge anyone with anything, I do not carry enough snot for such a thing. All I can do is to observe and report what I see and pray our LORD convicts of the sin unto Salvation through Faith.
That's rich! You don't even understand what you are saying. So I guess we shouldn't expect you to understand what anyone else is saying. Certainly gives us a hint about your understanding of Scripture.
: th1b.taylor Mon Jun 11, 2018 - 14:49:49
I do not charge anyone with anything, I do not carry enough snot for such a thing. All I can do is to observe and report what I see and pray our LORD convicts of the sin unto Salvation through Faith.
When you assert such things as....
that person has strolled into Satan's Parlor. You and to many others have been operating from there for a long, long time and are in need of godly retreat.
....are you not clearly implying that the person is in satan's camp?
: Alan Mon Jun 11, 2018 - 18:28:25
When you assert such things as....
....are you not clearly implying that the person is in satan's camp?
Look, YHWH did not call people to be like other people but rather those that are His Called are called to be a Peculiar People.
1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
We are called to believe on what the Natural Man can not only not see but also cannot conceive of. Yashuah is very clear when He said to us that except we believe as a child, we cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.
1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
How far does that truth extend? I am not qualified to say but anyone that pushes against that Envelope is risking Eternal Damnation and if I, the Bond Servant, Slave, if the Slave of the Most High worries over being thought a Fool, as you have broadcast I am, they are not in the Christ and if they be not in Christ. Then, as per scripture, if they are not in Christ they have nothing of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit's Indwelling and Guidance in all things, the Fruit of the Spirit we must judge them by is rotten and they must be warned by those Obedient Bond Servants. (Matt. 7 and the last three verses of the last chapter of Matthew.
Though you now appear to be rooted in the World's Rape of Matt. 7:1 that ignores the context the verse is found in, the World will not love you nor me and will save no man, not even you or me. Every being is born on the wide path and must decide to live for today and go, not to Hell but to the Eternal Lake of Fire or to turn a 180 degree turn and hop over onto the Narrow and Straight Path to the Narrow Gate.
As a God Called Preaching Teacher i will die one peculiar servant to the point of volunteer slavery and will not repent of it.
I grew up one nasty booger with the voice of an angel according to my fans and I always laughed when the local Churches elders, Deacons and wives dropped in between 9 and 10 and tried to run down some good looking Cowgirl or young Cowboy.
When in tears and repentance I gave my life to Yashuah I held nothing in reserve. As a result, I expect to be banned from any forum that is not fully submitted to our Master and King. Since '95 that has certainly been the case.
: th1b.taylor Tue Jun 12, 2018 - 17:00:57
Look, YHWH did not call people to be like other people but rather those that are His Called are called to be a Peculiar People.
1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
We are called to believe on what the Natural Man can not only not see but also cannot conceive of. Yashuah is very clear when He said to us that except we believe as a child, we cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.
1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
How far does that truth extend? I am not qualified to say but anyone that pushes against that Envelope is risking Eternal Damnation and if I, the Bond Servant, Slave, if the Slave of the Most High worries over being thought a Fool, as you have broadcast I am, they are not in the Christ and if they be not in Christ. Then, as per scripture, if they are not in Christ they have nothing of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit's Indwelling and Guidance in all things, the Fruit of the Spirit we must judge them by is rotten and they must be warned by those Obedient Bond Servants. (Matt. 7 and the last three verses of the last chapter of Matthew.
Though you now appear to be rooted in the World's Rape of Matt. 7:1 that ignores the context the verse is found in, the World will not love you nor me and will save no man, not even you or me. Every being is born on the wide path and must decide to live for today and go, not to Hell but to the Eternal Lake of Fire or to turn a 180 degree turn and hop over onto the Narrow and Straight Path to the Narrow Gate.
As a God Called Preaching Teacher i will die one peculiar servant to the point of volunteer slavery and will not repent of it.
I grew up one nasty booger with the voice of an angel according to my fans and I always laughed when the local Churches elders, Deacons and wives dropped in between 9 and 10 and tried to run down some good looking Cowgirl or young Cowboy.
When in tears and repentance I gave my life to Yashuah I held nothing in reserve. As a result, I expect to be banned from any forum that is not fully submitted to our Master and King. Since '95 that has certainly been the case.
Nice deflection, you obviously have difficulty backing up your statements with a simple yes or no.
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 17:09:44
Barbarian observes:
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
Quote
That's your opinion
Being a Christian is not an opinion. It's a faith. However, it's not debatable as to whether or not we have the mind and curiosity to find out things for ourselves. It's obviously true. If you're claiming God didn't give those to us, who did?
Nobody is saying that being a Christian is an opinion. I don't know where that is coming from. And I'm not claiming anything that you imply there.
As I said, your statement that God gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves, is your opinion. The matter that some have such mind and curiosity on how God created the universe, does not necessarily mean that such mind and curiosity was given by God. Where then can this mind and curiosity come from? I'd say it most probably come from the man.
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 17:09:44
Quote
and feeling I have to say, not mine. I don't see God saying anything of that in scriptures either.
I don't see God saying anything about giving us electricity in scripture, either. Do you have a point, and if so, who did give us electricity?
What I do see is that, what was later called electricity, is included in the things that God had created. In scriptures, that would be inclusive in the "all things" that God created.
So what is your point in mentioning electricity?
Barbarian,
I'd like to hear from you concerning this which I've written in one of my posts (Reply #2359 on: Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 00:03:28 ) in reply to one of your post, which you seem to have not commented on.
On your statement "And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.", I would have to object. God did not create life Sir, much less, created life using nature. Unless you are referring to a different god than my God who is revealed in the Bible.
[quote\I'd like to hear from you concerning this which I've written in one of my posts (Reply #2359 on: Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 00:03:28 ) in reply to one of your post, which you seem to have not commented on.[/quote]
On your statement "And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.", I would have to object. God did not create life Sir, much less, created life using nature.
He says that He did:
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
So, that's what He says. Unless you are referring to a different god than my God who is revealed in the Bible.
Barbarian observes:
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
That's your opinion
Barbarian observes:
Being a Christian is not an opinion. It's a faith. However, it's not debatable as to whether or not we have the mind and curiosity to find out things for ourselves. It's obviously true. If you're claiming God didn't give those to us, who did?
As I said, your statement that God gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves, is your opinion. The matter that some have such mind and curiosity on how God created the universe, does not necessarily mean that such mind and curiosity was given by God. Where then can this mind and curiosity come from? I'd say it most probably come from the man.
God gives us our abilities.
and feeling I have to say, not mine. I don't see God saying anything of that in scriptures either.
Barbarian asks:
I don't see God saying anything about giving us electricity in scripture, either. Do you have a point, and if so, who did give us electricity?
What I do see is that, what was later called electricity, is included in the things that God had created.
Like life on Earth. My point exactly.
In scriptures, that would be inclusive in the "all things" that God created.
But as you see, He explicitly says that He created living things from nature. Those are inclusive in "all things" too.
So what is your point in mentioning electricity?
So you understood that God didn't list everything He created.
Barbarian,
That God used nature to create life is an oxymoron. The term create when used in connection with God is almost universally reserved for creation ex nihilo.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 07:54:26
Quote
On your statement "And since He tells us He used nature to create life in the first place, I know that, too.", I would have to object. God did not create life Sir, much less, created life using nature.
He says that He did:
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
So, that's what He says. Unless you are referring to a different god than my God who is revealed in the Bible.
What God created as mentioned in the passages you cited are living things. So God created living things, different from saying that God created life.
My God does not create life. Rather He gives life.
: Michael2012 Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 08:54:56
My God does not create life. Rather He gives life.
And your spirit -- Is that created?
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 08:00:48
Barbarian observes:
He gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves.
Quote
That's your opinion
Barbarian observes:
Being a Christian is not an opinion. It's a faith. However, it's not debatable as to whether or not we have the mind and curiosity to find out things for ourselves. It's obviously true. If you're claiming God didn't give those to us, who did?
Quote
As I said, your statement that God gave us minds and curiosity to find out some of that for ourselves, is your opinion. The matter that some have such mind and curiosity on how God created the universe, does not necessarily mean that such mind and curiosity was given by God. Where then can this mind and curiosity come from? I'd say it most probably come from the man.
God gives us our abilities.
Yes He does. But what the natural man does comes from the man.
Man's curiosity comes from the man.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 08:00:48
Quote
and feeling I have to say, not mine. I don't see God saying anything of that in scriptures either.
Barbarian asks:
I don't see God saying anything about giving us electricity in scripture, either. Do you have a point, and if so, who did give us electricity?
Quote
What I do see is that, what was later called electricity, is included in the things that God had created.
Like life on Earth. My point exactly.
No Sir. As I said my God does not create life, rather He gives it. Life is inherent in my God. That is why I said, perhaps your god is different from my God.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 08:00:48
In scriptures, that would be inclusive in the "all things" that God created.
But as you see, He explicitly says that He created living things from nature. Those are inclusive in "all things" too.
Yes He created living things from out of the ground. But that is different from what you said, that is, He created life.
: The Barbarian Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 08:00:48
So what is your point in mentioning electricity?
So you understood that God didn't list everything He created.
Is that all of your point? Well, you don't have to go the matter of electricity just to point that out.
Apparently you failed to show that God gave man, minds and curiosity to find out how He created all things, and that He wanted us to find out.
: 4WD Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 09:00:04
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 08:54:56
My God does not create life. Rather He gives life.
And your spirit -- Is that created?
No. It is given.
: Michael2012 Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 09:30:51
And your spirit -- Is that created?
No. It is given.
Where did it come from?
: 4WD Sun Jun 10, 2018 - 15:48:14
There are few who post here who slice and dice the testimony to fit their own model that you, Amo, beginning with any adherence to the false teachings of Ellen G. White.
No one here has referred to or quoted EGW at all, save you now of course, since you are unable to refute the plain testimony of scripture. Now you wish to bring EGW into the conversation as a diversionary tactic I suppose. Start another thread regarding the same, so as not to hijack this one, and I will gladly address your accusations.
If your suggesting EGW originated the biblical teaching that humanity has been given a limited time to make their one and most critical decision in life, you give her far to much credit. The gospel message is for the exact purpose of bringing people to the point making this most critical decision of their lives with eternal consequences. When this gospel shall be preached in all the world, the end will come. These are not EGW's words or testimony.
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,
having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. 14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. 17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
Humanities probation will end when the gospel has been preached to every nation, kindred, and tongue. This is the testimony of Jesus Christ and His holy scriptures. Your argument is again, against the holy scriptures, not me, or EGW, or anyone else for that matter.
: 4WD Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 12:51:27
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 09:30:51
And your spirit -- Is that created?
No. It is given.
Where did it come from?
God
: Michael2012 Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 22:14:41
Where did it come from?
God
And where did He get it?
: Amo Sat Jun 16, 2018 - 16:30:32Humanities probation will end when the gospel has been preached to every nation, kindred, and tongue. This is the testimony of Jesus Christ and His holy scriptures. Your argument is again, against the holy scriptures, not me, or EGW, or anyone else for that matter.
I have never argued one way or another about humanity's probation ending. You're obviously confused.
Just have a question.
At what point in history, did God's Creation become limited to mans knowledge of what exists?
: geronimo Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 07:34:29Just have a question. At what point in history, did God's Creation become limited to mans knowledge of what exists?
At the fall of man! And from there it went downhill. These many posts prove it.
2392 Replies
57249 Views!
: geronimo Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 07:34:29
Just have a question.
At what point in history, did God's Creation become limited to mans knowledge of what exists?
Loaded question. When we see things like "
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.", we begin to understand that some passages in the Bible are simply not meant to be taken literally. There exists absolutely no conflict between creation and science if we simply allow science to reveal God's creation. The determination of a YEC is most definitely a man made concept, so the answer to your question differs between each man's understanding of creation, the only ones that translate the Genesis account into a hard and fast rule are the religious advocates that only assume their understanding is the correct understanding.
: 4WD Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 05:54:27
I have never argued one way or another about humanity's probation ending. You're obviously confused.
Since you accused me of preaching EGW instead of scripture after posts concerning humanities probation, I presumed this is what you were referring to. My bad. What were you referring to? Or was this just a blanket statement without any real specific detail and therefore purpose, other than distraction or insult?
Even YE creationists admit that God creates life. Their argument is that He did it from nothing. The Bible says He created it from other created things.
Loaded question. When we see things like "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.", we begin to understand that some passages in the Bible are simply not meant to be taken literally. There exists absolutely no conflict between creation and science if we simply allow science to reveal God's creation. The determination of a YEC is most definitely a man made concept, so the answer to your question differs between each man's understanding of creation, the only ones that translate the Genesis account into a hard and fast rule are the religious advocates that only assume their understanding is the correct understanding.
Right. Neither YE creationism, or any other belief about how God created life, is Christian orthodoxy. Christians disagree about this, unless they try to make their personal interpretation into the Word of God, they are at no risk of losing their salvation from those beliefs.
Since God created all things, life is another of His creations. In this world, He uses nature to create it.
4WD:
And your spirit -- Is that created?
Michael:
No. It is given.
4WD:
Where did it come from?
Michael:
God
4WD:
And where did He get it?
Michael:
God is the source of it.
: The Barbarian Tue Jun 19, 2018 - 11:38:56
Even YE creationists admit that God creates life. Their argument is that He did it from nothing. The Bible says He created it from other created things.
As I said my God does not create life, rather He gives it. Life is inherent in my God. He is the source, not creator of it.
: Michael2012 Wed Jun 20, 2018 - 10:53:44
4WD:
And your spirit -- Is that created?
Michael:
No. It is given.
4WD:
Where did it come from?
Michael:
God
4WD:
And where did He get it?
Michael:
God is the source of it.
That is pure gobbledeegook. God is the source of everything; therefore by your reasoning, God hasn't created anything.
: 4WD Wed Jun 20, 2018 - 11:13:50
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:53:44
4WD:
And your spirit -- Is that created?
Michael:
No. It is given.
4WD:
Where did it come from?
Michael:
God
4WD:
And where did He get it?
Michael:
God is the source of it.
That is pure gobbledeegook. God is the source of everything; therefore by your reasoning, God hasn't created anything.
When I say God is the "source" of it, I mean to refer of something that comes from God and not something that God created or made. For example, God is the source of life. God does not create life. It is already there for the imparting and giving. That goes as well concerning the spirit.
Of course God created everything. Everything that which originally did not exist.
: Michael2012 Thu Jun 21, 2018 - 00:32:23When I say God is the "source" of it, I mean to refer of something that comes from God and not something that God created or made. For example, God is the source of life. God does not create life. It is already there for the imparting and giving. That goes as well concerning the spirit.
Of course God created everything. Everything that which originally did not exist.
More gobbledeegook. That doesn't even make sense. Angels are spirit. Were they already there for the imparting and giving? No, of course not. God created angels.
: 4WD Thu Jun 21, 2018 - 04:33:08
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 00:32:23
When I say God is the "source" of it, I mean to refer of something that comes from God and not something that God created or made. For example, God is the source of life. God does not create life. It is already there for the imparting and giving. That goes as well concerning the spirit.
Of course God created everything. Everything that which originally did not exist.
gobbledeegook. That doesn't even make sense. Angels are spirit. Were they already there for the imparting and giving? No, of course not. God created angels.
gobbledeegook for you, not for me. Does not make sense to you, but not to me.
Yes angels are spirit, but spirit are not angels. What God created are angels, not the spirit.
: Michael2012 Thu Jun 21, 2018 - 00:32:23
Of course God created everything. Everything that which originally did not exist.
Weird statement.
Nothing existed originally, so God created everything period.
: Michael2012 Fri Jun 22, 2018 - 23:42:48gobbledeegook for you, not for me. Does not make sense to you, but not to me.
Yes angels are spirit, but spirit are not angels. What God created are angels, not the spirit.
Now that really is gobbledeegook. Where do spirits come from if not created by God?
: 4WD Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 14:46:09
I'll accept that.
Of course you will, but will you answer the question?
: The Barbarian Tue Jun 19, 2018 - 11:38:56
Even YE creationists admit that God creates life. Their argument is that He did it from nothing. The Bible says He created it from other created things.
Book, chapter, and verse please.
: The Barbarian Tue Jun 19, 2018 - 11:40:17
Right. Neither YE creationism, or any other belief about how God created life, is Christian orthodoxy. Christians disagree about this, unless they try to make their personal interpretation into the Word of God, they are at no risk of losing their salvation from those beliefs.
Since God created all things, life is another of His creations. In this world, He uses nature to create it.
Right, no one can actually understand scripture, so it doesn't matter what anyone believes as long as they don't try to make that belief God's word they are OK. So everyone is saved no matter what they believe as long as they don't preach that their word or belief is God's word. Yea that's the ticket.
For God so loved the world that He gave us His word that all might make it mean whatever they wish, that all might be saved by whatever they believed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1904&v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ
Interesting video. Apparently it is to only YE creationists that serious problems with the theory of evolution.
: 4WD Sat Jun 23, 2018 - 05:53:48
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 23:42:48
gobbledeegook for you, not for me. Does not make sense to you, but not to me.
Yes angels are spirit, but spirit are not angels. What God created are angels, not the spirit.
Now that really is gobbledeegook. Where do spirits come from if not created by God?
No sir. But yes again for you.
Now, in your question, if by "spirits" you are referring to angelic beings, my answer to your question is that they did not come from God, but that God created them into being.
Now, we are told that angels are spirit in nature, as contrasted to man, whose nature is material flesh. My question to you is this, do angels have a body, a spirit, a soul?
But let's go back to man. God created man. From Genesis 2:7, we are told how God created man. And by that we know the nature of man, that is, flesh, spirit, and soul. Flesh was made and formed of the dust of the ground. With regards the spirit, what do you say concerning it? That God created it? Scriptures says that God gives spirit to the man, forms it within the man. With regards the soul, what do you say concerning it? In my understanding, this is the person of man. Scriptures says when Adam was created, "and man became a living soul". The soul is that which was created into being from out of nothing, while the flesh was not, and more so, the spirit was not.
: The Barbarian Tue Jun 19, 2018 - 11:40:17
Right. Neither YE creationism, or any other belief about how God created life, is Christian orthodoxy. Christians disagree about this, unless they try to make their personal interpretation into the Word of God, they are at no risk of losing their salvation from those beliefs.
Since God created all things, life is another of His creations. In this world, He uses nature to create it.
I think Barbarian the scientist, is mistaken here that life is created by God.
Let's take the case of man. God created man, not life. The life in the man, so that he lives, was not created by God but was given by God.
The Christian scientist evolutionists claim they know how God created man, that is, as they say by using nature which they called and say "by evolution". However, Christians can go to God's words in scriptures. For in scriptures, we are told how God created man. And doing so, we know the nature of man, that is, flesh, spirit, and soul. Flesh was formed of the dust of the ground by God. To the Christian scientist evolutionist, this is perhaps what they claim that God had done by evolution. But the man is not all material body, so that, in the creation of man, it does not stop there. But of course the scientist cannot, by science, know about the spirit, as well as about the soul. So, Christian scientists, really should not claim that they know how God created man by science, when they admit that science only deals with the physical creation of God.
Barbarian observes:
Right. Neither YE creationism, or any other belief about how God created life, is Christian orthodoxy. Christians disagree about this, unless they try to make their personal interpretation into the Word of God, they are at no risk of losing their salvation from those beliefs.
Since God created all things, life is another of His creations. In this world, He uses nature to create it.
Amo presents his beliefs:
Right, no one can actually understand scripture, so it doesn't matter what anyone believes as long as they don't try to make that belief God's word they are OK. So everyone is saved no matter what they believe as long as they don't preach that their word or belief is God's word. Yea that's the ticket.
I think you're wrong about this. Yes, no one fully understands scripture. As Paul says:
1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
Creationists aren't going to hell for refusing to accept God's word about creation. That's not a salvation issue. Theology won't save you. What is in your heart saves you. Loving God and loving your fellow man will save you.
Are non-believers going to hell? What does Jesus say?
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 10:38:29
Barbarian observes:
Right. Neither YE creationism, or any other belief about how God created life, is Christian orthodoxy. Christians disagree about this, unless they try to make their personal interpretation into the Word of God, they are at no risk of losing their salvation from those beliefs.
Since God created all things, life is another of His creations. In this world, He uses nature to create it.
Amo presents his beliefs:
I think you're wrong about this. Yes, no one fully understands scripture. As Paul says:
1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
Creationists aren't going to hell for refusing to accept God's word about creation. That's not a salvation issue. Theology won't save you. What is in your heart saves you. Loving God and loving your fellow man will save you.
Are non-believers going to hell? What does Jesus say?
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
No, that is just the way you interpret it Barbarian. According to your own exemplified standard, any and all are free to claim that is just your interpretation and believe otherwise without any effect upon their salvation. Nor do they need to explain what the verses you shared really do mean in contrast to your false claim of what they mean because of your faulty interpretation. Not according to your exemplified standard regarding creation and the flood in any case.
: The Barbarian Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 10:38:29
Loving God and loving your fellow man will save you.
No Sir. That is not what saves. It is God that saves. Loving God and fellow man is the result of God's salvation of one, not the ticket. It is what a child of God does, and not what one can and should do for him to become a child of God.
: Michael2012 Sat Jun 23, 2018 - 20:14:57
I think Barbarian the scientist, is mistaken here that life is created by God.
Let's take the case of man. God created man, not life. The life in the man, so that he lives, was not created by God but was given by God.
If God did not create life...then who did?
: Michael2012 Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 14:16:34
No Sir. That is not what saves. It is God that saves. Loving God and fellow man is the result of God's salvation of one, not the ticket. It is what a child of God does.
That is exactly what Barbarian was alluding to; our requirements for salvation, not how it happens.
: Alan Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 21:52:13
That is exactly what Barbarian was alluding to; our requirements for salvation, not how it happens.
I am not sure if I agree.
If evolution is not the way it happened, and made a point that scripture should not be read literally, and because of that people have wandered from the gospel...we most certainly are responsible.
We are only to promote one thing, and that's the truth.
In my book the evolution theory is a non-Christian theory and a dilution of Gods Word.
God tells us how He did it, and He even tells us in how much time He did it.
We have decided with our feeble minds and fallible technology that it was not how He did it.
We are challenging Gods Word and declare it false. That too is a matter of the heart.
We can declare if this is a salvation issue all we want. God may not agree with us.
: AVZ Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 21:33:12
If God did not create life...then who did?
Life is inherent in God. It eternally exist with and in Him. He is the source of it. He gives it to whomever He wills. And He did when He created the living creatures.
: Michael2012 Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 05:57:57Life is inherent in God. It eternally exist with and in Him.
That is typical Michael2012 irrational thinking.
: Michael2012 Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 05:57:57
Life is inherent in God. It eternally exist with and in Him. He is the source of it. He gives it to whomever He wills. And He did when He created the living creatures.
Actually you do not know for sure if God is "alive" in the same way we are "alive".
See power exists, but power is not alive. Consciousness also exists, but consciousness is not a living thing.
We know that God is a conscious, powerful being...but we don not know if the life force in God is at all similar to ours.
So God could have created life that is different from His life, something He sustains and feeds.
This is not a strange notion. We can make the same comparison between us and plants.
Plants are also alive, but its a different kind of life from humans and animals.
Which means there is a difference between life and life.
Besides, are you making the same argument for all the other "shared" attributes man has with God?
For example God can see, man can also see...hence sight was not created, it was given?
: AVZ Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 06:35:56Besides, are you making the same argument for all the other "shared" attributes man has with God?
For example God can see, man can also see...hence sight was not created, it was given?
I agree with most of what you said here but you need to be a little careful. When you say that God can see, what do you mean. Seeing as we see is a physical activity. It is a physical response of the physical receptors in the eye to a rather narrow band of wave lengths of electromagnetic energy. I rather suspect there is nothing like that at all in God's "seeing". Same with hearing, smelling, etc. The same is true of life. Life as we know it is a physical attribute. Even the term "eternal life" is a figure of speech, a metaphor, to denote a "condition" of existence in the spiritual realm. We really have no idea or concept of what "life" means with respect to the spiritual realm.
: AVZ Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 06:35:56
Actually you do not know for sure if God is "alive" in the same way we are "alive".
See power exists, but power is not alive. Consciousness also exists, but consciousness is not a living thing.
We know that God is a conscious, powerful being...but we don not know if the life force in God is at all similar to ours.
So God could have created life that is different from His life, something He sustains and feeds.
This is not a strange notion. We can make the same comparison between us and plants.
Plants are also alive, but its a different kind of life from humans and animals.
Which means there is a difference between life and life.
Besides, are you making the same argument for all the other "shared" attributes man has with God?
For example God can see, man can also see...hence sight was not created, it was given?
Life as spoken in scriptures is not how and what science defines it.
Plants are also alive, but its a different kind of life from humans and animals.
I am not talking about the kind of life, but about life. Besides, are plants living things according to scriptures or according to science?
Besides, are you making the same argument for all the other "shared" attributes man has with God?
For example God can see, man can also see...hence sight was not created, it was given?
No I am not.
: 4WD Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 07:07:30
Life as we know it is a physical attribute.
I can see now that we know life differently. Life, as I know it from scriptures, is not a physical attribute. If it were, scripture would not say that God has life, for God is spirit. So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
: 4WD Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 07:07:30
We really have no idea or concept of what "life" means with respect to the spiritual realm.
1 John 1:1-3
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
: AVZ Sun Jun 24, 2018 - 21:33:12
If God did not create life...then who did?
The answer would be obvious. Life is not created. It is eternal as God is eternal. In fact, scriptures says:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
: Michael2012 Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 11:09:59I can see now that we know life differently. Life, as I know it from scriptures, is not a physical attribute. If it were, scripture would not say that God has life, for God is spirit. So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
Again, you have presented a typical irrational Michael2012 type of statement. The only "life" you have any real understanding of is physical life. Spiritual "life" is described or presented in Scripture only in allegory with physical life. Outside of that, no one really has a clue about it whatsoever; not the smartest man in the world and certainly not you or me.
And by the way, the Bible never says that "God has life" as you claim; at least it does not in the many versions that I have available to me.
: 4WD Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 12:35:15
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:09:59
I can see now that we know life differently. Life, as I know it from scriptures, is not a physical attribute. If it were, scripture would not say that God has life, for God is spirit. So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
Again, you have presented a typical irrational Michael2012 type of statement. The only "life" you have any real understanding of is physical life. Spiritual "life" is described or presented in Scripture only in allegory with physical life. Outside of that, no one really has a clue about it whatsoever; not the smartest man in the world and certainly not you or me.
And by the way, the Bible never says that "God has life" as you claim; at least it does not in the many versions that I have available to me.
You apparently do not run off of unkind words to say. That's not nice and is impolite. If you take yourself better than others, at least don't let that lead you to be unkind and impolite toward one who you consider lesser than you. Such words does not invite friendship nor does it foster humility.
You speak for yourself. For the apostles and everyone for that matter who knows Jesus Christ has all the clues as to what "life" is. For they understand what the following scriptures says concerning life, even eternal life:
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
1 John 1:2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Finally on your last statement,
"And by the way, the Bible never says that "God has life" as you claim; at least it does not in the many versions that I have available to me."
John 5:26
(NKJV) For as the
Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
(NIV) For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
(NASB) For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
Deuteronomy 5:26
(NKJV) For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the
living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
(NIV) For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived?
(NASB) For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Matthew 16:16
(NKJV) Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God."
(NIV) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
(NASB) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
None of those say what you said.
No, that is just the way you interpret it Barbarian.
God didn't leave any escape clauses. He made it quite clear.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
According to your own exemplified standard, any and all are free to claim that is just your interpretation and believe otherwise without any effect upon their salvation.
One's theology or lack of it may not make a difference. But what one does or fails to do, will. If you can believe God. One person told me that it didn't matter, because if one had faith, then works would happen as a consequence. Maybe so. Perhaps works verify faith. But we are indeed justified by works, as God says:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
: 4WD Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 14:00:04
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:09:59
can see now that we know life differently. Life, as I know it from scriptures, is not a physical attribute. If it were, scripture would not say that God has life, for God is spirit. So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
Again, you have presented a typical irrational Michael2012 type of statement. The only "life" you have any real understanding of is physical life. Spiritual "life" is described or presented in Scripture only in allegory with physical life. Outside of that, no one really has a clue about it whatsoever; not the smartest man in the world and certainly not you or me.
And by the way, the Bible never says that "God has life" as you claim; at least it does not in the many versions that I have available to me.
You apparently do not run off of unkind words to say. That's not nice and is impolite. If you take yourself better than others, at least don't let that lead you to be unkind and impolite toward one who you consider lesser than you. Such words does not invite friendship nor does it foster humility.
You speak for yourself. For the apostles and everyone for that matter who knows Jesus Christ has all the clues as to what "life" is. For they understand what the following scriptures says concerning life, even eternal life:
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
1 John 1:2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Finally on your last statement, "And by the way, the Bible never says that "God has life" as you claim; at least it does not in the many versions that I have available to me."
John 5:26
(NKJV) For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,
(NIV) For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
(NASB) For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
Deuteronomy 5:26
(NKJV) For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
(NIV) For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived?
(NASB) For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Matthew 16:16
(NKJV) Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
(NIV) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
(NASB) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
None of those say what you said.
Do you not see, even from John 5:26 that God has life?
And if the scriptures I cited to you does not give you any clue at all about what "life" is in the scriptures, perhaps the knowledge that life is a physical attribute would stay with you.
: Michael2012 Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 11:09:59
So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
If life is not physical, how can plants and trees be alive? Do they have spirits?
Michael2012 has a tendency to change the meanings of words and phrases in Scripture to fit his own weird beliefs. If he believes the sky is green, not blue, you are not likely to change his mind by anything you say.
: 4WD Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 07:56:24
Michael2012 has a tendency to change the meanings of words and phrases in Scripture to fit his own weird beliefs. If he believes the sky is green, not blue, you are not likely to change his mind by anything you say.
Moreover, he runs rabbit trails that are irrelevant to the subject or at most are stretches to create a weak point.
: The Barbarian Mon Jun 25, 2018 - 19:06:20
God didn't leave any escape clauses. He made it quite clear.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
Mt. 7:21 is immediately followed by the following verses:
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
Ask yourself this: Is not prophesying in Jesus' name, casting out demons in Jesus's name, and doing many wonders in Jesus' name not among the will of the Father? While Mt. 7:21 is clear that only those who calls on to Jesus as Lord and does the will of the Father will be those who will enter the Kingdom of God, one must ask oneself, what will of God is Jesus talking about? If not things such as prophesying, casting out demons, and doing many wonders, in Jesus' name, what will of God is Jesus referring to? I'm quite sure that many think of the commandments found in the Law, especially the ten commandments. And so, I am not surprised that you cited Romans 2:13 which speaks of doers of the law. And having cited Mt.25:31-46, are you saying that the will of the Father Jesus was referring to in Mt.7:21 are such works as those mentioned that the sheep had done?
Now, is that the will of the Father that Jesus is referring to in Mt.7:21? Does Jesus really speak of these works, or is there more to it than the works themselves, that is the will of the Father which Jesus is meaning to teach?
I have made my point I guess, so I'll leave that question for you to ponder upon.
Also with regards Mt.25:31-46, it speaks about Christ, when He comes and sit on the throne of His glory, as will separate the nations one from another. He is figured to be as a shepherd who divides
HIS sheep from the goats (Mt. 25:32). Now, the sheep will inherit the kingdom, while the goats will go into the everlasting fire. It brings to mind, what Jesus told the apostles in John 10, He likens Himself in the figure of a Shepherd who owns the sheep (
HIS sheep that is). And Jesus goes on to say regarding this that when He, the good Shepherd, brings out His own sheep, He goes before them, and the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice. And He said in John 10, 14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and
am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and
I lay down My life for the sheep."
Who are the Good Shepherd's (Jesus') sheep, HIS sheep? They are those who belong to Him as being His own. They are those whom Jesus leads. They are those who know His voice and follow Him. They are those whom He knew and is known by them. And finally, but certainly the first, they are those whom Jesus will lay down His life for.
Finally, with regards Romans 2:13, I will have to cite a few verses to point out the truth concerning the matter of the law:
Galatians 3:11 But that
no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
Galatians 3:24 Therefore
the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
James 2:10 For whoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet
stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
: AVZ Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 07:24:20
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 11:09:59
So, to the contrary, life is not a physical attribute but is spiritual.
If life is not physical, how can plants and trees be alive? Do they have spirits?
Who says that plants and trees are living things? Science and scientist perhaps. But do scriptures says that plants and trees have life or are living creatures or living things?
It all comes down to what life is. I'd of course go with what life is in scriptures, more than what life is in science.
: 4WD Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 07:56:24
Michael2012 has a tendency to change the meanings of words and phrases in Scripture to fit his own weird beliefs. If he believes the sky is green, not blue, you are not likely to change his mind by anything you say.
So tell let's try one. What word or phrase in John 5:26 did I change the meaning of to fit my belief that God has life?
: Alan Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 08:19:57
Moreover, he runs rabbit trails that are irrelevant to the subject or at most are stretches to create a weak point.
Be kind and fair enough to cite an instance.
: Michael2012 Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 08:47:33
If life is not physical, how can plants and trees be alive? Do they have spirits?
Who says that plants and trees are living things? Science and scientist perhaps. But do scriptures says that plants and trees have life or are living creatures or living things?
It all comes down to what life is. I'd of course go with what life is in scriptures, more than what life is in science.
Now that's just funny rofl rofl rofl
And just one more example of his changing the meaning of words and phrases to support his really weird view of things.
: Michael2012 Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 08:47:33
If life is not physical, how can plants and trees be alive? Do they have spirits?
Who says that plants and trees are living things? Science and scientist perhaps. But do scriptures says that plants and trees have life or are living creatures or living things?
It all comes down to what life is. I'd of course go with what life is in scriptures, more than what life is in science.
1 Corinthians 15:36
"What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first."Obviously seeds couldn't die if they were not alive.
Seems to me the Bible teaches that plants are alive.
: AVZ Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 09:52:45
1 Corinthians 15:36
"What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first."
Obviously seeds couldn't die if they were not alive.
Seems to me the Bible teaches that plants are alive.
With the constant references to seeds, roots, branches, etc it would appear that the biblical metaphors would indicate "life" in plants.
Plants scream in terror when they are killed. Those screams are not heard by murderous vegans so the smug and self satisfied herbivores care not.
Evil killers, all of them.
: Texas Conservative Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 11:10:01
Plants scream in terror when they are killed. Those screams are not heard by murderous vegans so the smug and self satisfied herbivores care not.
Evil killers, all of them.
That is terrible, we should be doing something about that. ::pondering::
Mt. 7:21 is immediately followed by the following verses:
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
Ask yourself this: Is not prophesying in Jesus' name, casting out demons in Jesus's name, and doing many wonders in Jesus' name not among the will of the Father? While Mt. 7:21 is clear that only those who calls on to Jesus as Lord and does the will of the Father will be those who will enter the Kingdom of God, one must ask oneself, what will of God is Jesus talking about? If not things such as prophesying, casting out demons, and doing many wonders, in Jesus' name, what will of God is Jesus referring to? I'm quite sure that many think of the commandments found in the Law, especially the ten commandments. And so, I am not surprised that you cited Romans 2:13 which speaks of doers of the law. And having cited Mt.25:31-46, are you saying that the will of the Father Jesus was referring to in Mt.7:21 are such works as those mentioned that the sheep had done?[/quote]
Jesus said exactly what had saved the sheep.
Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Now, is that the will of the Father that Jesus is referring to in Mt.7:21? Does Jesus really speak of these works, or is there more to it than the works themselves, that is the will of the Father which Jesus is meaning to teach?
I'm just pointing out what Jesus says determines your eternal home. Best listen to Him.
I have made my point I guess, so I'll leave that question for you to ponder upon.
Who are the Good Shepherd's (Jesus') sheep, HIS sheep?
See above. He makes it abundantly clear how the sheep will be separated from the goats. Listen to Him.
They are those who belong to Him as being His own. They are those whom Jesus leads. They are those who know His voice and follow Him. They are those whom He knew and is known by them. And finally, but certainly the first, they are those whom Jesus will lay down His life for.
Finally, with regards Romans 2:13, I will have to cite God's word as to how we are justified:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Some things just need repeating
By The Barbarian-----
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
Amen
::tippinghat::
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 01, 2017 - 07:51:34
Nope. Since the early 1960s, when the discovery of mid-oceanic ridges explained why the continents split apart from each other, no geologists doubt that the did so.
Nope. Oceanic crust is much different than continental shelf, being thinner, denser, and composed of different rock. It was, as you just learned, produced from mantle material upwelling from blow. Continents are mostly granite
Indeed...and the ocean plates...all of the ocean plates are much younger than all of the continental plates. There was a time when there were no ocean basins on this earth, but I don't see anyone talking about that fact.
: tooldtocare Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 11:32:59
Some things just need repeating
By The Barbarian-----
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
Amen
::tippinghat::
I personally have no problem with the concept of evolution being true. I don't know if evolution is true, but it is a logical theory, and it does not contradict the Bible. God created man from the dust of the earth. We don't really know what that means. Did God pick up a pile of dust and whirl his magic wand and...POOF...Adam appeared? I highly doubt that. We don't know what the creation of man entailed; from dust to human being leaves a lot of room for speculation. Why not evolution?
: Sonofason Wed Jul 04, 2018 - 16:28:07
I personally have no problem with the concept of evolution being true. I don't know if evolution is true, but it is a logical theory, and it does not contradict the Bible. God created man from the dust of the earth. We don't really know what that means. Did God pick up a pile of dust and whirl his magic wand and...POOF...Adam appeared? I highly doubt that. We don't know what the creation of man entailed; from dust to human being leaves a lot of room for speculation. Why not evolution?
Hi son of a son. I'm glad that you are open minded on the subject.
I would not expect you to accept evolution unless the facts supported it. But they do. They support it overwhelmingly.
1. We find enough transitional forms that this alone would suffice. I invite you to examine the transitional forms from a four footed animal with a particular ear innovation known only to cetaceans, to modern cetaceans that we have today. I also invite you to examine the transitional forms going from the Australopithecines up to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Pay special attention to Homo Habilis. Either one of these examples, whales or humans, should be more than enough to convince you.
2. Evolution fits the genetic information like a glove
3. We observe evolution in the present.
4. We have even seen new species come into existence, new species being defined as that which can no longer breed with the species it came from, and produces offspring which can reproduce.
Indeed...and the ocean plates...all of the ocean plates are much younger than all of the continental plates.
There's a good reason for that. When continental crust and oceanic crust collide, the oceanic crust, being denser is subducted below the continental crust into the mantle where it is destroyed. New oceanic crust is constantly being made at the mid-oceanic ridges. So continental crust is older than oceanic crust.
There was a time when there were no ocean basins on this earth, but I don't see anyone talking about that fact.
This system is more ancient than living things on the planet, so it would have been a long, long time ago.
: Alan Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 11:34:05
That is terrible, we should be doing something about that. ::pondering::
Most men and boys have already been trying for years, unfortunately there is usually some woman around coercing them to violate their moral convictions. Could be this is why God made man the head of the household, in an attempt to minimize the sinful, senseless slaughter of these helpless creatures.
: Carey Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 12:15:05
Most men and boys have already been trying for years, unfortunately there is usually some woman around coercing them to violate their moral convictions. Could be this is why God made man the head of the household, in an attempt to minimize the sinful, senseless slaughter of these helpless creatures.
When plants are armed with chopping knives, I will support the right to gather them.
: AVZ Tue Jun 26, 2018 - 09:52:45
1 Corinthians 15:36
"What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first."
Obviously seeds couldn't die if they were not alive.
Seems to me the Bible teaches that plants are alive.
Thought this was an accepted fact! Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported! rofl ). Think I've read somewhere that when we are in a forest or copse, we only see "superficially" - beneath the ground there is a tangle of roots etc, that can "communicate" warnings of impending adverse circumstances to neighbouring trees/plants, so they can take "protective" action (albeit slowly). There
is "life" going on in plants - growth/reproduction - and it is "sentient", even if not as we understands it! But then we get into the problem of "over-crowding" and one plant spoiling the chances of growth for another - just like humanity - survival of the fittest!?
However I don't think we need to feel guilty about cutting up/eating vegetables/fruit etc. Weren't they given to us for sustenance? Jesus was certainly not adverse to eating the produce of the land or sea. Perhaps we should be grateful that we are at the top of the food chain. Here is another thought - we live in symbiosis with other "small things" that help with our digestion etc, - e.g. beneficial gut bacteria.
Can it be that the Lord intended all of life to be a struggle, an effort!? Isn't there a Japanese Christian proverb - "No cross - no crown"! It's all too complex for me! ::lookaround::
https://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/videos/playlists/genesis-week.php#.W0DAPS2ZO4s
More examples of just how shaky supposedly unquestionable fact oriented "science" really is.
Hi Amo. I just thought it rather humorous that one of the people featured in "Video Ministries" from your link is a devout Christian Evolutionist. ::crackup::
Anyhow, hope your doing well and have a blessed day! ::smile::
: Alan Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 12:04:10
Hi Amo. I just thought it rather humorous that one of the people featured in "Video Ministries" from your link is a devout Christian Evolutionist. ::crackup::
Anyhow, hope your doing well and have a blessed day! ::smile::
Even "Christian" evolutionists are right about some things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64Hs8seswc
So, how do all these fossils end up in one layer all across the earth, while individual fossils within the same occupy space consisting of what would be layers representing thousands to tens of thousands of years according to deep time? Doesn't work out very well concerning what we know about fossil formation.
So, how do all these fossils end up in one layer all across the earth,
They don't. Some are literally miles above others.
while individual fossils within the same occupy space consisting of what would be layers representing thousands to tens of thousands of years according to deep time?
Species tend to live for tens of thousands of years. Some, a lot longer. But they are sorted nicely according to age. This is why Haldane suggested that one easy refutation of evolution would be a rabbit in Cambrian deposits.
Doesn't work out very well concerning what we know about fossil formation.
Seems to work out just as one would expect.
: Amo Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 17:30:16Even "Christian" evolutionists are right about some things.
Like 4WD? Let us not give him so much credit. Actually, he's right about many things, he's also wrong about some important doctrine issues. I still love him, even though he makes it hard sometimes.
: RB Tue Jul 10, 2018 - 06:34:00
Like 4WD? Let us not give him so much credit. Actually, he's right about many things, he's also wrong about some important doctrine issues. I still love him, even though he makes it hard sometimes.
It would be difficult for any man to be right about all things and adversely, wrong about all things.
People are often fueled by passion, right or wrong it is the charge behind their views and at times can lead us all astray if we dismiss objectivity in our discussions.
: The Barbarian Mon Jul 09, 2018 - 13:56:03
They don't. Some are literally miles above others.
Species tend to live for tens of thousands of years. Some, a lot longer. But they are sorted nicely according to age. This is why Haldane suggested that one easy refutation of evolution would be a rabbit in Cambrian deposits.
Seems to work out just as one would expect.
Apparently you didn't watch the video, or if you did you didn't pay much attention to the details, or if you did your are simply ignoring that which doesn't fit into your chosen belief system.
How does a massive global layer of chalk composed of tiny shell fish and lime grains which supposedly took millions of years to form at a rate of 1/4 inch per thousand years, contain so many varying kinds of fossils which require rapid burial to be there? Fully developed crinoids, very large fish even with undigested other fish inside them which they had just consumed, large pliosaurs, turtles, dinosaurs, and birds are all found within these globally distributed chalk beds. There is only one answer, the layer was deposited rapidly, not over the course of millions of years. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward a global flood as described in God's word. Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon.
Dave UK wrote:
Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported! ).
A personal experience:
When I worked, it was with the public, and over the years, many many subjects were discussed. One particular lady I remember was probably somewhere between 60 or 80 years old, said she had a house full o beeuuuuuutiful plants. And her secret was also talking to them. But, the surprising part was, she gave them a good "cussin" every day. Sweet little lady she was.
Just reminded me of that.
Blessings
Apparently you didn't watch the video, or if you did you didn't pay much attention to the details,
I'm just pointing out the errors.
or if you did your are simply ignoring that which doesn't fit into your chosen belief system.
We find fossils almost all the way down in the geologic column. That's just the way it is. The sequence of fossils in the geologic column remains an insolvable problem for YE creationism.
How does a massive global layer of chalk composed of tiny shell fish and lime grains which supposedly took millions of years to form at a rate of 1/4 inch per thousand years, contain so many varying kinds of fossils which require rapid burial to be there?
Mostly, they don't. The later layers (which are still forming in many places in the oceans) have some fossils of vertebrates, few of which required sudden burial to be there. The relatively few exceptions, such as the Burgess shale, formed by means observed to happen today. Would you like to learn about that?
Fully developed crinoids, very large fish even with undigested other fish inside them which they had just consumed, large pliosaurs, turtles, dinosaurs, and birds are all found within these globally distributed chalk beds.
And all of those fossils are found in layers which have only the fauna that lived at that time. Hence, no modern birds and placoderms in the same strata, no vertebrates and trilobites together, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on. Would you like to learn more about how they are separated?
There is only one answer, the layer was deposited rapidly, not over the course of millions of years.
Sorry, that won't work. As you now see, the separation of organisms in the layers of rock show that they were deposited at very different times. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward long ages, consistent with God's word. Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon.
: The Barbarian Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 16:58:22
I'm just pointing out the errors.
We find fossils almost all the way down in the geologic column. That's just the way it is. The sequence of fossils in the geologic column remains an insolvable problem for YE creationism.
Mostly, they don't. The later layers (which are still forming in many places in the oceans) have some fossils of vertebrates, few of which required sudden burial to be there. The relatively few exceptions, such as the Burgess shale, formed by means observed to happen today. Would you like to learn about that?
And all of those fossils are found in layers which have only the fauna that lived at that time. Hence, no modern birds and placoderms in the same strata, no vertebrates and trilobites together, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on. Would you like to learn more about how they are separated?
Sorry, that won't work. As you now see, the separation of organisms in the layers of rock show that they were deposited at very different times. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward long ages, consistent with God's word. Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon.
So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?
Dave UK wrote:
Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported! ).
My serranos prefer Norteño.
So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?
Or he just convinced himself a fable without knowing anything. Or maybe he was misled by someone who knew no more than he did.
Or maybe someone lied to him.
But what you're telling me he says, is completely wrong. Demonstrably so. If you'd like some more detail, and evidence, let me know which one you'd like me to show you first.
: Amo Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 17:03:08
So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?
Why is that someone is always a "liar" in your opposition? If one believes they are telling the truth it can never be considered a lie. Misinformed, misled, uneducated, ignorance, yes, but a liar? No
Snelling talks about the tapeats sandstone, but he doesn't tell you that it contains trilobites, but no vertebrates. If he was right, and it was from a single worldwide flood, it would have ocean vertebrates in it.
The chalk continues to form on the ocean floor, so that has all sorts of fossils in it.
The fact that some ocean floor was raised up, such as the Himalayas, (which are made of ocean sediments, and are still rising as India moves northward into Asia) means only that the Earth's crust moves.
: Alan Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 17:17:50
Why is that someone is always a "liar" in your opposition? If one believes they are telling the truth it can never be considered a lie. Misinformed, misled, uneducated, ignorance, yes, but a liar? No
All who contradict the word of God are liars, willful or not. God is truth, we are not. All will be judged by the word of God, not every individuals perception of truth. We are all liars, God alone is true. We will either submit to that truth unto salvation, or reject it as true children of the father of lies and share his fate. Deep time evolution, and the creation account of scripture cannot both be true.
Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.
Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.
Jesus did not specify how the flood happened, or even if it was a parable or not. It is most unwise to add new requirements for salvation. Avoid it. He does not care if you accept the way He did creation or not.
Let it go, and focus on what He wants from you. That will save. The rest won't.
: The Barbarian Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 19:20:30
Jesus did not specify how the flood happened, or even if it was a parable or not. It is most unwise to add new requirements for salvation. Avoid it. He does not care if you accept the way He did creation or not.
Let it go, and focus on what He wants from you. That will save. The rest won't.
To the contrary, let go of the lie you have latched onto in contradiction to the word of God, and grasp the truth of the words of Jesus Christ and scripture. Then you will not perish along with the lies of the evil one.
: The Barbarian Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 17:05:37
Or he just convinced himself a fable without knowing anything. Or maybe he was misled by someone who knew no more than he did.
Or maybe someone lied to him.
But what you're telling me he says, is completely wrong. Demonstrably so. If you'd like some more detail, and evidence, let me know which one you'd like me to show you first.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/chalk-it-global-flood/
The following quote is from the link above, where the entire article may be viewed.
The Extent of the Chalk Beds
First, let's take a look at where the main chalk beds are located. The white chalk cliffs of Dover are an iconic English landmark, but similar chalk cliffs are also found to the west along the southern English coast near Brighton, and to the north along part of the Yorkshire coast. The chalk beds that connect these areas are estimated to average over 1300 feet (400 m) in thickness. The same chalk beds also crop out along the Antrim coast of Northern Ireland, and can be traced right across Europe (France, Germany, Poland, and beyond) to Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and even Kazakhstan.
ALL THESE CHALK BEDS ARE AT THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL IN THE GLOBAL GEOLOGIC RECORD. SO THEY REPRESENT ONE GLOBAL SEDIMENTARY ROCK UNIT.
Similar chalk beds are found in the Midwestern USA, from Nebraska to Texas, and from Alabama to Colorado. They include the Niobrara Chalk in Kansas, which is famous for its astonishing variety of fossils. Chalk beds are also found in the Perth Basin of southern Western Australia (the Gingin Chalk) and contain the same fossils as the English chalk beds, as well as the same types of rock layers above and below them.
All these chalk beds are at the same relative level in the global geologic record. So they represent one global sedimentary rock unit. This similarity explains why they have all been assigned to the Cretaceous geologic period. (The name itself is derived from creta, the Latin word for chalk.) Since they're all at the same level, we know all these chalk beds were deposited at the same time.
But did these chalk beds take 40 million years to accumulate? Absolutely not. The unusual, jumbled mix of fossils dispels the evolutionary scenario of slow-and-gradual accumulation of tiny grains in a placid sea over 40 million years.
The Fossils in the Chalk
The chalk fabric consists primarily of the tiny fossil remains of single-celled organisms called foraminifers, and of coccoliths (tiny plates which were the external skeletons of certain kinds of algae), set in a very fine-grained calcite. Even more important is the existence of so many larger fossils found mixed in the chalk beds. How did all these large, diverse creatures get buried in the ooze, unlike what we find on the ocean floor today?
The list of large fossils is huge. English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones).4 The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures—the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land.
The Niobrara Chalk in Kansas contains an even more impressive list of larger fossils—fish of various types up to 16 feet (5 m) long, sharks, turtles up to 13 feet (4 m) long; plesiosaurs up to 46 feet (14 m) long; mosasaurs up to 49 feet (15 m) long; pterosaurs with wingspans up to 30 feet (9 m); dinosaurs, such as ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs, up to 30 feet (9 m); and birds up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall.5
How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today?
: Amo Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 18:24:49
All who contradict the word of God are liars, willful or not. God is truth, we are not. All will be judged by the word of God, not every individuals perception of truth. We are all liars, God alone is true. We will either submit to that truth unto salvation, or reject it as true children of the father of lies and share his fate. Deep time evolution, and the creation account of scripture cannot both be true.
Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.
That doesn't even begin to address my post, no one here has rejected the testimony of Christ, it is YOU and you alone that judge us and refer to us as liars.
First, let's take a look at where the main chalk beds are located. The white chalk cliffs of Dover are an iconic English landmark, but similar chalk cliffs are also found to the west along the southern English coast near Brighton, and to the north along part of the Yorkshire coast. The chalk beds that connect these areas are estimated to average over 1300 feet (400 m) in thickness. The same chalk beds also crop out along the Antrim coast of Northern Ireland, and can be traced right across Europe (France, Germany, Poland, and beyond) to Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and even Kazakhstan.
ALL THESE CHALK BEDS ARE AT THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL IN THE GLOBAL GEOLOGIC RECORD. SO THEY REPRESENT ONE GLOBAL SEDIMENTARY ROCK UNIT.
Well, let's take a look...
The cretaceous was first identified by chalk beds. The white cliffs of Dover, for example, are from the Cretaceous. However, the most ancient layers of chalk contain fossils not found in more recent layers:
The Upper Chalk is the largest portion of the entire chalk beds (Melville 1982). It is up to 404 m in the Isle of Wight and 260 m in Dorset (Melville 1982). It is described as "milk-white, fine in its grain and smooth when cut" (Wright 1981). The base of the Upper Chalk is marked by the hardest layer of all, the Chalk Rock (Melville 1982). It has a nodular character and was deposited in unusually shallow water (Bennison 1969). It contains the fossils of sponges and the moulds of ammonites and gastropods (Melville 1982). Above the Chalk Rock the chalk becomes very smooth, white, and "massively bedded, except for nodular beds and hardgrounds in...the pilula Zone of the Isle of Wight and Dorset" (Melville 1982). There are many different types of fossils present in the Upper Chalk (Bennison 1969). These include remains of fishes, in particular teeth are quite common, as well as the remains of sharks and teeth of ray fishes (Melville 1982). This provides extra evidence to support the statement about how calm the water was in which the chalk was found. Sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and are usually not preserved well since they are so fragile (Wicander 2004). To find a shark skeleton means that the water was not disturbed much over a long period of time. Echinoids such as Micraster and Echinocorys are common and can be used to correlate different layers of chalk (Melville 1982). Ammonites are also used for correlation including the Hyphantoceras reussianum (Bennison 1969). Other fossils present include: gastropods, bivalves, oysters, brachiopods, and sponges which are commonly enclosed in flint (Melville 1982).
http://courses.washington.edu/uwtgeo06/papers/BrieannaGraham_Paper.htm
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils. But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story. Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick. Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams. The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet. So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud. And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.
So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this.
How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today?
It is happening today. In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.
: Alan Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 20:15:59
That doesn't even begin to address my post, no one here has rejected the testimony of Christ, it is YOU and you alone that judge us and refer to us as liars.
Oh, so you do believe in the biblical global flood. So how do you square that with evolutionist observations and speculations which ignore the same?
: The Barbarian Sat Jul 14, 2018 - 21:31:37
Well, let's take a look...
The cretaceous was first identified by chalk beds. The white cliffs of Dover, for example, are from the Cretaceous. However, the most ancient layers of chalk contain fossils not found in more recent layers:
The Upper Chalk is the largest portion of the entire chalk beds (Melville 1982). It is up to 404 m in the Isle of Wight and 260 m in Dorset (Melville 1982). It is described as "milk-white, fine in its grain and smooth when cut" (Wright 1981). The base of the Upper Chalk is marked by the hardest layer of all, the Chalk Rock (Melville 1982). It has a nodular character and was deposited in unusually shallow water (Bennison 1969). It contains the fossils of sponges and the moulds of ammonites and gastropods (Melville 1982). Above the Chalk Rock the chalk becomes very smooth, white, and "massively bedded, except for nodular beds and hardgrounds in...the pilula Zone of the Isle of Wight and Dorset" (Melville 1982). There are many different types of fossils present in the Upper Chalk (Bennison 1969). These include remains of fishes, in particular teeth are quite common, as well as the remains of sharks and teeth of ray fishes (Melville 1982). This provides extra evidence to support the statement about how calm the water was in which the chalk was found. Sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and are usually not preserved well since they are so fragile (Wicander 2004). To find a shark skeleton means that the water was not disturbed much over a long period of time. Echinoids such as Micraster and Echinocorys are common and can be used to correlate different layers of chalk (Melville 1982). Ammonites are also used for correlation including the Hyphantoceras reussianum (Bennison 1969). Other fossils present include: gastropods, bivalves, oysters, brachiopods, and sponges which are commonly enclosed in flint (Melville 1982).
http://courses.washington.edu/uwtgeo06/papers/BrieannaGraham_Paper.htm
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils. But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story. Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick. Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams. The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet. So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud. And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.
So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this.
It is happening today. In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.
All observations made by those who have already determined there was no global flood, and therefore exclusionary of any explanation including that scenario. In a global flood of course, the waters of the oceans would be far deeper than they are today, it would take quite some time for them to fully recede and settle to their eventual new bounds, they would be filled with the debris of mass extinction, which would include cases of both rapid burial during the most violent stages of the flood, and more slow layering after things calmed down and began to settle over time. The layering would of course be far more rapid than deep time evolution allows for and easily explains the anomolies deep time evolution cannot. The recession of the masses of waters distributed all over the planet would produce periods of both calm and violent incidents as massive amounts of waters were redistributed throughout the earth.
Your simply choose the observations of deep time theorists who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.
All observations made by those who have already determined there was no global flood,
Nope. Not one of those facts I showed you were first noticed by anyone who denied a global flood. If you doubt this, show us otherwise.
In a global flood of course, the waters of the oceans would be far deeper than they are today
Wrong. The average depth then was much less than it is today, because the oceans spread over low areas to make shallow seas. What is needed for the cretaceous chalk beds to form, are lots of shallow seas and continental shelves. Which is what we see in the Cretaceous.
The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
it would take quite some time for them to fully recede and settle to their eventual new bounds, they would be filled with the debris of mass extinction, which would include cases of both rapid burial during the most violent stages of the flood,
As you learned, the deposition of cretaceous chalk was so gentle as to preserve the skeletons of sharks. So that story won't work, either.
The recession of the masses of waters distributed all over the planet would produce periods of both calm and violent incidents as massive amounts of waters were redistributed throughout the earth.
It was violent and sudden, except that it wasn't. In other words, Snelling is trying to make his new doctrine fit any possible facts.
Bottom line:
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils. But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story. Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick. Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams. The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet. So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud. And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.
So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this. It is happening today. In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.
Snelling simply choose his new interpretation of scripture, depending on those who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.
"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism...A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism."
Andrew Snelling, Koongarra Uranium Deposits in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1990, pages 807 -812
"Myr" means "millions of years" Snelling here is writing that these formations are about 1.8 billion years old.
: The Barbarian Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 08:32:17
Nope. Not one of those facts I showed you were first noticed by anyone who denied a global flood. If you doubt this, show us otherwise.
Wrong. The average depth then was much less than it is today, because the oceans spread over low areas to make shallow seas. What is needed for the cretaceous chalk beds to form, are lots of shallow seas and continental shelves. Which is what we see in the Cretaceous.
The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
As you learned, the deposition of cretaceous chalk was so gentle as to preserve the skeletons of sharks. So that story won't work, either.
It was violent and sudden, except that it wasn't. In other words, Snelling is trying to make his new doctrine fit any possible facts.
Bottom line:
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils. But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story. Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick. Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams. The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet. So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud. And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.
So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this. It is happening today. In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.
Snelling simply choose his new interpretation of scripture, depending on those who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.
You don't even believe in a global flood, now your saying what it was like after one? So your saying that people who believed in a global flood also believe it took deep time to form the chalk beds. Why, and what sense does that make? Please do provide examples of those who believe the biblical global flood account, but still think it took countless millions of years to form all the layers. The flood negates the need for deep time, and deep time gets messed up by the flood.
Please do provide examples of scripture which teach evolution and deep time slow development. Not the same old lame arguments that if scripture means what you say it means rather than what it plainly states, then it teaches evolution and or deep time. Show us scripture which plainly states your case, or continue to say it does at your own peril.
: The Barbarian Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 08:59:29
"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism...A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism."
Andrew Snelling, Koongarra Uranium Deposits in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1990, pages 807 -812
"Myr" means "millions of years" Snelling here is writing that these formations are about 1.8 billion years old.
And so? My faith is not in Snelling, it is in the word of God. If you choose to place your faith in Snelling simply because he might have said something you agree with, go to, do likewise.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Snelling
According to his many online biographies at creationist websites, Snelling received a Bachelor of Science with First Class Honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales and a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney, for his thesis A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.[2] He worked for various mining companies for several years before leaving to pursue his creation "research" in 1983,[3] however he was retained as a consultant by Koongarra uranium project until 1992.[2]
His creation research has centred around dating methods, with his pet hobbyhorse being polonium halos, which according to Answers in Genesis, he has used to demonstrate that most rock layers and fossils were deposited by a global flood 4,300 years ago.[4] He has been repeatedly overlooked for a Nobel Prize despite the importance of this discovery. He has recently sued the US National Park Service on grounds of "religious discrimination" because they won't let him collect rocks at the Grand Canyon National Park.[5]
The above quote from the link provided doesn't seem to suggest that Snelling believes in deep time evolution or cause of rock layers. Nevertheless, my faith is not in him.
http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-fossils-found-wrong-place/
Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place
Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario.
In the geologic timescale, the "Cambrian period" refers to the lowermost densely fossil-bearing rocks. These rocks record the sudden appearance of creatures, with representatives of almost every living phylum found fully formed and with no signs of evolutionary transition, which is an enigma for evolution.1
The soft-bodied creatures found in Cambrian strata were considered stem or basal creatures. They were supposed to have been the worms, arthropods, and other odd creatures that "gave rise" to subsequent body forms found in upper strata. Although none of them ever showed clear transition toward the more familiar sea animals that are found in higher strata or are living today, they were considered to be evolutionary predecessors because they were thought to be exclusive to Cambrian rocks.
Now all of that has changed. A recent study in Nature reported that some of the same soft-bodied "Cambrian" sea creatures were found in Morocco--preserved in brilliant reds and yellows because of the oxidation of pyrite that occurred on their soft tissues while they were being fossilized--in a higher layer, mixed in with "later" animals.2 This discovery erases the argument for evolution, which relies on the absence of these creatures in higher layers to support the assumption that they "diverged" into "later" life forms--and eventually into people.
This find forces evolutionists to add a new belief in order to support their overall concept of past life. Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others--an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record.3 Now, they must also believe that some creatures evolved into others, and at the same time spawned more of themselves in "parallel." They must insist that the "stem" soft-bodied animals "gave rise" to newer life forms found in higher sediments, as well as to populations that continued to produce more forms just like themselves.
Since both of these "parallel" populations lived alongside one another, instead of in separate periods of time, then why are the Cambrian creatures not typically found as fossils in higher strata? The study's authors said, "The rarity of Burgess Shale-type taxa [organisms] in post-Middle Cambrian rocks elsewhere probably results from a lack of preservation rather than the extinction and replacement of these faunas during the later Cambrian."2 (The Burgess Shale Formation is widely known for soft-tissue preservation in its fossils.)
This one brief statement rewrites a foundational part of the evolutionary story. Instead of going extinct because they evolved into subsequent forms, it must now be believed that they evolved into other forms despite what these new fossils show--not transitional forms evolving, but stable forms persisting. This find forces the evolutionary story to take too many twists and turns to be true.
On the other hand, if God created all creatures during the same week-long miraculous event, and if God subsequently judged the world in a globe-covering watery catastrophe, then one would expect to find exactly what has been described: ancient sea creatures that were fully-formed and coexisted in time, buried together in mud in a massive, worldwide graveyard.
I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one rofl ::juggle:: ::doh:: ::frustrated:: ::aloneinclearlogic::
Snelling is a qualified geologist, and writes perfectly reasonable papers for companies that hire him to tell them about mining issues.
Then he writes in creationist journals with an entirely different story.
And it is clear why; if he gave a company the creationist story, it would be completely useless to them in their search for minerals, and they wouldn't hire him. And if he wrote a realistic paper for a creationist website, they wouldn't print it.
"Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario."
ICR lied to you about that. As the paper they cited made clear, many scientists thought that the absence of Burgess Cambrian organisms in Ordovician (age right after the Cambrian) deposits was due mainly to the soft bodies of those organisms, which rarely fossilize. Turns out, they were right. Some Cambrian organisms survived into the Ordovician period before going extinct. Which was, as the study suggests, already suspected by many paleontologists.
Ordovician faunas of Burgess Shale type
Nature volume 465, pages 215–218 (13 May 2010)
Abstract
The renowned soft-bodied faunas of the Cambrian period, which include the Burgess Shale, disappear from the fossil record in the late Middle Cambrian, after which the Palaeozoic fauna1 dominates. The disappearance of faunas of Burgess Shale type curtails the stratigraphic record of a number of iconic Cambrian taxa. One possible explanation for this loss is a major extinction2,3, but more probably it reflects the absence of preservation of similar soft-bodied faunas in later periods4. Here we report the discovery of numerous diverse soft-bodied assemblages in the Lower and Upper Fezouata Formations (Lower Ordovician) of Morocco, which include a range of remarkable stem-group morphologies normally considered characteristic of the Cambrian. It is clear that biotas of Burgess Shale type persisted after the Cambrian and are preserved where suitable facies occur. The Fezouata biota provides a link between the Burgess Shale communities and the early stages of the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.
So they lied to you about the author's conclusions. Because they were pretty sure you wouldn't check for yourself.
There's a lesson for everyone therein.
I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one
Could be worse...
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090602.gif)
I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one
So it seems! I have a look at the latest posts on this, often erudite, thread from time to time out of curiosity - but "back off" from getting involved. Send me a postcard when you all come to a definite
final conclusion (if ever - most of us may be "under the daisies" by that time)! ::smile::
Well, well - what do you think about this? Extract from today's BBC internet news site : -
"The Neanderthals may have been extinct for thousands of years, but in 2010, advances in technology enabled geneticists to map the Neanderthal genome using DNA extracted from ancient bones. This led to a startling discovery: our ancestors interbred with other species after they migrated out of Africa.
So in the UK, most of us have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA, and scientists have found traces of the Denisovans and other ancient hominid species too.
In short, as Prof Alice Roberts, an anatomist and anthropologist from the University of Birmingham explains, "We just really weren't clear about the level of shenanigans that went on in human evolution, and now we are."
Listen: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution (BBC Inside Science)"
: Alan Sun Jul 15, 2018 - 11:59:15
I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one rofl ::juggle:: ::doh:: ::frustrated:: ::aloneinclearlogic::
It all always leads back to square one, faith. Some people will always have more faith in God's word and eye witness account, others will always have more faith in fallen humanities observations and hypotheses. Both sides explaining the same evidence before them, as their faith dictates.
: Dave_UK Fri Jul 20, 2018 - 06:16:21
Well, well - what do you think about this? Extract from today's BBC internet news site : -
"The Neanderthals may have been extinct for thousands of years, but in 2010, advances in technology enabled geneticists to map the Neanderthal genome using DNA extracted from ancient bones. This led to a startling discovery: our ancestors interbred with other species after they migrated out of Africa.
So in the UK, most of us have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA, and scientists have found traces of the Denisovans and other ancient hominid species too.
In short, as Prof Alice Roberts, an anatomist and anthropologist from the University of Birmingham explains, "We just really weren't clear about the level of shenanigans that went on in human evolution, and now we are."
Listen: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution (BBC Inside Science)"
Yea, its all real clear now, until next time of course. I wonder just how many times "scientists" have to have been wrong, before they will stop saying and acting like they have it all figured out now.
: Amo Fri Jul 20, 2018 - 08:35:07
Yea, its all real clear now, until next time of course. I wonder just how many times "scientists" have to have been wrong, before they will stop saying and acting like they have it all figured out now.
As has been said several times before, when science reevaluates it's position it is always a progression, they never revert back to 1000's of year old idealism and never will. A time will most certainly come when what is presented today as scientific theory will become irrefutable fact and that will be by any and all standards.
: Alan Fri Jul 20, 2018 - 10:19:22
As has been said several times before, when science reevaluates it's position it is always a progression, they never revert back to 1000's of year old idealism and never will. A time will most certainly come when what is presented today as scientific theory will become irrefutable fact and that will be by any and all standards.
A time has come many times already when what has been presented as scientific theory and even fact by some, has been proved wrong. Yes a time will come when all be understood properly, or opportunity will exist to understand all things as they really are. God will provide that opportunity, not fallen humanity.
: Amo Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 08:25:16 God will provide that opportunity, not fallen humanity.
He has already done that. It is called science. God is actually the author of science.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psa 19:1). Though it would seem that some [e.g., YEC] are simply too myopic to notice.
: Amo Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 08:25:16
A time has come many times already when what has been presented as scientific theory and even fact by some, has been proved wrong.
Name one of these times that science has been proven wrong that resulted in
your theories being accepted as correct.
: 4WD Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 08:46:44God is actually the author of science.
I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man.
: Michael2012 Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 11:44:59
I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man.
Nope, science has always existed.
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."It is simply man studying what God has created, a major part of our human characteristic by
design.
: Alan Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 12:15:46
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:44:59
I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man.
Nope, science has always existed.
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
It is simply man studying what God has created, a major part of our human characteristic by design.
Firstly, not all scientist will agree with you that they are studying what God has created. For there are many scientist who do not believe that there is a God who created what they are studying.
Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.
: Michael2012 Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 14:00:48Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.
Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity. I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible. More silly Michaelisms.
: Michael2012 Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 14:00:48
Firstly, not all scientist will agree with you that they are studying what God has created. For there are many scientist who do not believe that there is a God who created what they are studying.
Doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not, it's still God's creation that we walk upon and observe.
: Michael
Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.
Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.
Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.
: Alan Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 10:07:00
Name one of these times that science has been proven wrong that resulted in your theories being accepted as correct.
Who said anything about the result being creationist theories accepted as correct? The vast majority of the world will always reject this truth, along with the rest of scripture. My point was simple, I see no sense in people who have been wrong so many times, consistently acting like what they espouse is so correct, factual, and indisputable. Evolution does not have to be proved wrong, it has never been proved right. Those pretending and acting like it has, will never make it so, by doing so.
: 4WD Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 15:11:30
Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity. I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible. More silly Michaelisms.
2 Tim 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.Here we are, show scriptures endorsement of "science" as well please. Please do explain if you will, how the creation account of scripture not meaning what it says at all, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". Can you explain what it really means according to your science, and and then show the same according to you explanation please? Or do you disagree with Paul on this one?
: Amo Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 19:04:06
Who said anything about the result being creationist theories accepted as correct? The vast majority of the world will always reject this truth, along with the rest of scripture. My point was simple, I see no sense in people who have been wrong so many times, consistently acting like what they espouse is so correct, factual, and indisputable. Evolution does not have to be proved wrong, it has never been proved right. Those pretending and acting like it has, will never make it so, by doing so.
You're missing the point. When new theories are presented they are a progression of past theories, they weren't completely wrong, they just didn't have all the information yet. That's what science is all about.
: 4WD Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 15:11:30
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 14:00:48
Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.
Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity. I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible. More silly Michaelisms.
To defend is one thing. But to a lie is another.
That's right, studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity. But your guess of what I think is wrong. And your analogy is off by a zillion lightyears, which makes your unkind comments of "silly Michaelisms" pointing at you a zillion times too.
Studying the Bible and God as author of the Bible, with studying what God has created and God as the author of science, are apples and oranges.
Now, do you still defend and stand by your statement that God is the author of science? Everybody has a chance to repent, you know.
: Alan Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 15:28:04
Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.
Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.
Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.
We are talking about the lie that God is the author of science. The human characteristic that you say God desired us to possess is not even science sir.
Biblical events that would have been altered without science or scientific methodology? It seems you want to impress that science is some kind of force, which is not. Now, if you are alluding to the construction of the tower of Babel for instance, and say that that is science or scientific methodology, just try to analyze what had become of them.
This is what they said:
Genesis 11:4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
And this is what the Lord said:
Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
And this is what the Lord did because of that:
Genesis 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Can't you see where man's knowledge of how things work leads man to? And that was even in ancient times. God saw it. We ought to see it too.
: Amo Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 19:11:47
Please do explain if you will, how the creation account of scripture not meaning what it says at all, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". Can you explain what it really means according to your science, and and then show the same according to you explanation please? Or do you disagree with Paul on this one?
I believe the creation account in Genesis means what it says. And therefore it is just as Paul declared in 2 Timothy 3:16. I just don't believe the creation account in Genesis means what you think it means.
: Alan Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 21:24:14
You're missing the point. When new theories are presented they are a progression of past theories, they weren't completely wrong, they just didn't have all the information yet. That's what science is all about.
No, I understand that very well. Your missing my point, that being the case, why do so many scientists act and speak as though their observations concerning their theories are above questioning, treating those who disagree as though they are ignorant for doing so.
Nor is all supposed evidence presented by "scientists" even somewhat correct or based upon limited information. Some have purposely faked, fudged, or do regularly ignore contrasting evidence. Others have just simply been totally wrong, trying to make evidence what it is not to support their own theories. As is the case very often concerning supposed missing links. The theory is there, and those who believe it do of course search exactly for missing links to support their pet theory, often jumpingg the gun and being completely wrong. Much is assumed in the war to be right.
: 4WD Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:31:16
I believe the creation account in Genesis means what it says. And therefore it is just as Paul declared in 2 Timothy 3:16. I just don't believe the creation account in Genesis means what you think it means.
No, you do not think it means what it literally says, and the fourth commandment spoken by the mouth of God and written with His own finger testifies that it says. You think it represents something other than what it literally says, though you cannot or will not explain exactly what that is. Correct me if I am wrong, and please do explain your position according to the scriptures which specifically address the issue of creation. Thank you.
: Amo Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:57:28No, I understand that very well. Your missing my point, that being the case, why do so many scientists act and speak as though their observations concerning their theories are above questioning, treating those who disagree as though they are ignorant for doing so.
Nor is all supposed evidence presented by "scientists" even somewhat correct or based upon limited information. Some have purposely faked, fudged, or do regularly ignore contrasting evidence. Others have just simply been totally wrong, trying to make evidence what it is not to support their own theories. As is the case very often concerning supposed missing links. The theory is there, and those who believe it do of course search exactly for missing links to support their pet theory, often jumpingg the gun and being completely wrong. Much is assumed in the war to be right.
That actually sounds a lot like your version of the Genesis account of creation and other Scriptures. Change the word "scientists" to "Christians" in what you just wrote and it is right on target with much of what you post here.
: Amo Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 08:05:03No, you do not think it means what it literally says....
And neither do you.
: 4WD Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 08:08:49
That actually sounds a lot like your version of the Genesis account of creation and other Scriptures. Change the word "scientists" to "Christians" in what you just wrote and it is right on target with much of what you post here.
Wrong! The scriptures are there for everyone and anyone to examine. There is no question about what they literally say, the evidence is all in. No one has to guess work or theorize about what the literal meaning is. All the guess work is only for those who do not and or will not believe what the scriptures plainly state. Then and only then, does theorizing become necessary.
: Amo Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 08:19:47Wrong! The scriptures are there for everyone and anyone to examine. There is no question about what they literally say, the evidence is all in. No one has to guess work or theorize about what the literal meaning is. All the guess work is only for those who do not and or will not believe what the scriptures plainly state. Then and only then, does theorizing become necessary.
Oh really?? Please give me your
literal interpretation of
"....cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:17-18) What specifically is the "curse" spoken of here?
: Michael2012 Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 02:36:27
Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.
Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.
We are talking about the lie that God is the author of science. The human characteristic that you say God desired us to possess is not even science sir.
Biblical events that would have been altered without science or scientific methodology? It seems you want to impress that science is some kind of force, which is not. Now, if you are alluding to the construction of the tower of Babel for instance, and say that that is science or scientific methodology, just try to analyze what had become of them.
This is what they said:
Genesis 11:4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
And this is what the Lord said:
Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
And this is what the Lord did because of that:
Genesis 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Can't you see where man's knowledge of how things work leads man to? And that was even in ancient times. God saw it. We ought to see it too.
That's ludicrous! Do you really believe that man was not created to progress socially? It is science that paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. In your version we should still be living according to instinct rather than gathering the knowledge to make things better.
: Alan Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 08:52:26
That's ludicrous! Do you really believe that man was not created to progress socially? It is science that paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. In your version we should still be living according to instinct rather than gathering the knowledge to make things better.
I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.
So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?
Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.
: Michael2012 Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 09:58:44
I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.
So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?
Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.
You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.
: Alan Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:35:01
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 09:58:44
I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.
So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?
Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.
You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.
Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.
My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.
Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.
I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science.
If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.
: Michael2012 Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 09:48:00
You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.
Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.
My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.
Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.
I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science.
If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.
Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.
: Alan Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 10:56:41
Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.
yes.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/index.html#.W1YbltJKiUk
: Alan Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 10:56:41
Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 09:48:00
You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.
Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.
My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.
Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.
I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science.
If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.
Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.
And here you seem to forget that mankind has a nature that was corrupted by sin. Anything coming out from what is corrupted, be it good in your eyes and mind, does not make it good. It is well intimated that nothing good dwells in man. Paul said, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells". As the saying goes "Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." and "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."
Think also about this. Is not science about the wisdom of man? Yes it is. But has God not exposed the foolishness of this world's wisdom? Is not science about the things of this world? This is admitted, I suppose by the scientists themselves. They have love for the things in this world. Their deep interest about the things of this world and their supposed knowledge of it testifies to that. But scriptures says this to the Christians, "Do not love the world or the things in the world." And do you not know that the world is passing away?
Now the Christians are saved from this corrupted world, but not by science nor by the scientists, who thinks they make things better, and the world a better place. Rather, they are saved by Christ from this corrupted world, them now made to be no longer citizens of this world, but of heaven.
You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state. Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.
Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.
A question to the scientists in this forum:
Do you believe that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible?
: Alan Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 11:10:20
You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state. Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.
Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.
And you failed to see my point relative to that. Even while science may well be what to you made man and things rather primitive to be better, man remains to be with a corrupted nature and in a corrupted world. And that only God can make man and make things better for man, and that, through Christ.
And you are beginning to sound like you easily forgotten that the Bible is a work of God. And that being the truth, science had nothing to do with that, nor science is needed for the Bible to exist.
And it seems that you are beginning to redefine what science is. Perhaps you can tell us your definition of science.
: Alan Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 11:10:20
You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state. Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.
Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.
I would say yes and no. Science in its loosest terms meant knowledge.
Modern science is a methodology of explanations and predictions about the universe. Science doesn't happen without man's intervention. What science explains happens without man's intervention.
I make my living by science. While I am not a sold out old earth creationist, I don't understand the representation that scripture and the nature of God and science are opposed.
Of course some scientists and God are opposed, but that's not entirely the same thing.
: Michael2012 Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 11:39:07
And you failed to see my point relative to that. Even while science may well be what to you made man and things rather primitive to be better, man remains to be with a corrupted nature and in a corrupted world. And that only God can make man and make things better for man, and that, through Christ.
And you are beginning to sound like you easily forgotten that the Bible is a work of God. And that being the truth, science had nothing to do with that, nor science is needed for the Bible to exist.
And it seems that you are beginning to redefine what science is. Perhaps you can tell us your definition of science.
Science trickles down to many categories but I do agree with TC that in it's simplest form "science is knowledge".
The things we see in the natural become observations, what we
do with those things in the natural become tests and experiments, even in the crudest form such as clothing, shelter, and fire.
: Texas Conservative Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 12:04:35
Modern science is a methodology of explanations and predictions about the universe. Science doesn't happen without man's intervention. What science explains happens without man's intervention.
Thanks, that clarifies the point I was attempting to make.
: TC
I make my living by science. While I am not a sold out old earth creationist, I don't understand the representation that scripture and the nature of God and science are opposed.
Of course some scientists and God are opposed, but that's not entirely the same thing.
I don't believe that God and science are opposed either but it seems that there are some to the far left and right of both sides, some saying that science is limited to what God has revealed in His word, and on the extreme opposite end of course, God does not exist.
: Michael2012 Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 11:13:45A question to the scientists in this forum:
Do you believe that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible?
I am not a scientist per se. But I see my pickup in the driveway. Everything it was made of is visible, except perhaps some gases used in the material manufacturing processes.
A question to the scientists in this forum:
Do you believe that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible?
Pretty much everything except some gases. They aren't visible under ordinary conditions. Atoms aren't normally visible as individual objects of course, and atoms turn out to be made of things that are not even substances, and are even smaller and less visible.
Let me ask that again:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
: Michael2012 Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 07:53:18
Let me ask that again:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
That's plausible if your faith leads you there, but at the end of the day, what difference does it make?
: Michael2012 Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 07:53:18Let me ask that again:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
The Bible says that man is made of dust (Gen 3:19). Is dust visible?
I think you don't even understand the question that you are asking.
: Alan Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 07:59:39
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:53:18
Let me ask that again:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
That's plausible if your faith leads you there, but at the end of the day, what difference does it make?
I presume you are a Christian scientist. However, your answer gives me the impression that to you, the matter of the universe having been formed at God's command, that what is seen was not made out of what was visible, may or may not be true. But a Christian would easily say that that is true and he can understand that. And that, by faith.
: 4WD Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 08:06:24
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:53:18
Let me ask that again:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
The Bible says that man is made of dust (Gen 3:19). Is dust visible?
I think you don't even understand the question that you are asking.
We are not even talking what man is made of. And that is not the question even.
So sir, that is, if you are a Christian scientist, can you give your clear and direct answer to the question?
: Michael2012 Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 08:09:18
The Bible says that man is made of dust (Gen 3:19). Is dust visible?
I think you don't even understand the question that you are asking.
We are not even talking what man is made of. And that is not the question even.
So sir, that is, if you are a Christian scientist, can you give your clear and direct answer to the question?
Yeah, I can, but it is obvious that you would not understand it.
: 4WD Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 08:51:55
Oh really?? Please give me your literal interpretation of "....cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:17-18) What specifically is the "curse" spoken of here?
Strange, we are discussing the creation account, and you ask me about interpretation concerning the consequences of the fall. Why are you changing the subject? Why would anyone believe your surmising regarding creation or evolution, when you cannot even admit that a literal interpretation of what the creation account simply says, most obviously states that the world was created in six days?
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.A good place to start regarding the interpretation of course, would be accepting exactly what the scripture itself says the curse is. Read Genesis 1&2 to see how it was before the fall, and compare to the curse above, this will give you some details regarding the effects of the curse. It is not rocket science. Surely some one who has so much faith in human observation, can note the differences between what was established at creation and how the curse would effect the same. You don't mean to suggest that the same people who can look at rocks and bones and the present world as it is and determine unquestionably what happened countless billions of years ago according to the same, can't look at Genesis 1-3 and determine the differences between before and after the fall, do you? Again, why should anyone have faith in such individuals?
: Michael2012 Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 07:44:44
That's plausible if your faith leads you there, but at the end of the day, what difference does it make?
I presume you are a Christian scientist. However, your answer gives me the impression that to you, the matter of the universe having been formed at God's command, that what is seen was not made out of what was visible, may or may not be true. But a Christian would easily say that that is true and he can understand that. And that, by faith.
Again, what difference does it make?
: Alan Thu Jul 26, 2018 - 12:18:27
"science is knowledge".
Hi, fellow Canuck, Sir! :)
It's what the word means, indeed, knowledge.
1 Timothy 6.20 also speaks of "oppositions of science falsely so called".
: Amo Sat Jul 28, 2018 - 07:35:13
Strange, we are discussing the creation account, and you ask me about interpretation concerning the consequences of the fall. Why are you changing the subject? Why would anyone believe your surmising regarding creation or evolution, when you cannot even admit that a literal interpretation of what the creation account simply says, most obviously states that the world was created in six days?
What is strange is that you simply pick and choose what must be considered to be literal and then castigate others for not picking the same. The literal curse of the ground is
"thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you". But that is not what you believe at all. The YEC, and you based upon what you have said, believes that curse altered the entire universe -- utter nonsense. And hugely hypocritical.
: 4WD Sat Jul 28, 2018 - 07:59:12
What is strange is that you simply pick and choose what must be considered to be literal and then castigate others for not picking the same. The literal curse of the ground is "thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you". But that is not what you believe at all. The YEC, and you based upon what you have said, believes that curse altered the entire universe -- utter nonsense. And hugely hypocritical.
Scripture itself should determine what should be taken literally or not, not just whatever any individual decides regarding the same. Some scripture is blatantly symbolic, other scriptures have both literal and symbolic meaning. When scripture itself repeatedly applies literal meaning to certain passages, then it should be evident that such should be taken literally. The same is of course true for that which is intended to be symbolic. Again, this is not rocket science.
I do believe thorns and thistles are part of the curse. I'm not sure what all the rest of your claim concerning YEC is about, perhaps you could expound. Nor do I submit to everything every YEC proclamation or theory. As you should have noticed by now, I like to think for myself and draw my own conclusions. What exactly do you mean YEC's believe the curse altered the entire universe?
: Amo Sat Jul 28, 2018 - 07:35:13Surely some one who has so much faith in human observation, can note the differences between what was established at creation and how the curse would effect the same. You don't mean to suggest that the same people who can look at rocks and bones and the present world as it is and determine unquestionably what happened countless billions of years ago according to the same, can't look at Genesis 1-3 and determine the differences between before and after the fall, do you?
Please give us your specific observations from Genesis 1-3 of the differences between the before and the after concerning the fall.
: 4WD Fri Jul 27, 2018 - 15:17:35
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 08:09:18
4WD:
The Bible says that man is made of dust (Gen 3:19). Is dust visible?
I think you don't even understand the question that you are asking.
We are not even talking what man is made of. And that is not the question even.
So sir, that is, if you are a Christian scientist, can you give your clear and direct answer to the question?
Yeah, I can, but it is obvious that you would not understand it.
Oh yes of course, it would take you to need to use scientific terms and all that scientific language to have to spell out your answer to a simple question:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
: Alan Sat Jul 28, 2018 - 07:37:51
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 07:44:44
I presume you are a Christian scientist. However, your answer gives me the impression that to you, the matter of the universe having been formed at God's command, that what is seen was not made out of what was visible, may or may not be true. But a Christian would easily say that that is true and he can understand that. And that, by faith.
Again, what difference does it make?
I told you already. A Christian would easily say that that is true and he can understand that. And that, by faith. By faith, one understand that the universe was formed at God's command, that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. And if by faith, science, which deals evidence, cannot make one understand that. That is why, no matter how the Christian scientist try, he cannot, by science. Unless science involves faith.
: Michael2012 Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 07:57:38
We are not even talking what man is made of. And that is not the question even.
So sir, that is, if you are a Christian scientist, can you give your clear and direct answer to the question?
Yeah, I can, but it is obvious that you would not understand it.
Oh yes of course, it would take you to need to use scientific terms and all that scientific language to have to spell out your answer to a simple question:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
The fundamental problem here is that you do not understand the difference between God creating and God making -- or if you do, you certainly do not exhibit it.
: 4WD Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:14:14
The fundamental problem here is that you do not understand the difference between God creating and God making -- or if you do, you certainly do not exhibit it.
The fundamental problem is again, faith. Where does one place their faith. "Christian" evolutionists who have accepted scientific theories which blatantly contradict plain, simple, conclusive statements of scripture cannot accept the same and still believe their pet theories. Therefore they must deny or change the meaning of these plain, simple, conclusive statements of scripture. All scripture which contradicts their theory is not literal or properly understood unless interpreted by them as determined by the parameters said theory allows for. Scripture is subject to their theory, not theory subject to scripture. Fallen human theory is placed above the word of God. That is all.
: 4WD Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 08:14:14
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:57:38
We are not even talking what man is made of. And that is not the question even.
So sir, that is, if you are a Christian scientist, can you give your clear and direct answer to the question?
4WD:
Yeah, I can, but it is obvious that you would not understand it.
Michael:
Oh yes of course, it would take you to need to use scientific terms and all that scientific language to have to spell out your answer to a simple question:
Christian scientists, can you understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible?
The fundamental problem here is that you do not understand the difference between God creating and God making -- or if you do, you certainly do not exhibit it.
So, is that your final answer?
: 4WD Sat Jul 28, 2018 - 12:46:15
Please give us your specific observations from Genesis 1-3 of the differences between the before and the after concerning the fall.
Though you routinely ignore and will not answer many of my questions, and have now answered one of my questions with a question, sure. Off the top of my head, the first and most obvious it seems to me, would be that all things were no longer good. God pronounced all things good at the end of each day of creation, after the curse all things obviously were and are no longer good.
Obviously death was introduced through disobedience and was and is part of the curse, as foretold by God Himself. Thus humanity came from the dust and to the dust they now return.
Before the fall and curse God created and provided food for all life, afterward that provision was removed for humanity and perverted in all creation. Humanity would now have to provide food for substance themselves by the sweat of their brow and toil of their own hands. They would also have to battle with thorns and thistles and the like which apparently did not exist previously.
Child bearing would apparently be much harder on women than it would have been apart from the curse, and women would take a less equal position in relationship to men than God apparently originally intended.
Oh yes, serpents apparently would undergo physical changes that resulted in them crawling on their bellies as they do at present. I think that basically summarizes the main points recorded concerning the curse without expounding upon the implications and over all effect of such changes. This is what scripture simply, plainly, and conclusively states.
: Amo Sun Jul 29, 2018 - 11:08:19Off the top of my head, the first and most obvious it seems to me, would be that all things were no longer good. God pronounced all things good at the end of each day of creation, after the curse all things obviously were and are no longer good.
But the Bible never says that. What you take as obviously, is simply you, not the Bible. You are imposing your own preconceived notions about that. The Bible never says things were no longer "good".
: AmoObviously death was introduced through disobedience and was and is part of the curse, as foretold by God Himself. Thus humanity came from the dust and to the dust they now return.
No, Obviously not. It is true that they were ejected from the Garden because they sinned. But physical death occurred when they were ejected from the Garden and no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life. That is what the Bible says. Again there is no indication whatsoever that the physiology of the human body was changed in any way.
: AmoBefore the fall and curse God created and provided food for all life, afterward that provision was removed for humanity and perverted in all creation.
Here again that is simply an assumption on your part.
Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. We see that even in the Garden, man had to work for his food.
: AmoHumanity would now have to provide food for substance themselves by the sweat of their brow and toil of their own hands. They would also have to battle with thorns and thistles and the like which apparently did not exist previously.
The only real difference here is that apparently there were no thorns and thistles in the Garden. Once God ejected him from the Garden he was forced to contend with such things that grew outside of the Garden. But it is clear that he had to work for his food by working and tending the Garden.
: AmoChild bearing would apparently be much harder on women than it would have been apart from the curse, and women would take a less equal position in relationship to men than God apparently originally intended.
I would argue that God had not been surprised by all of this and so there is no reason to think that anything about the physiology of Eve actually changed. He was prepared for Adam's disobedience from before creation. We know that because God says that His plan of salvation was before all creation (! Peter 1:20).
: AmoOh yes, serpents apparently would undergo physical changes that resulted in them crawling on their bellies as they do at present.
It says also that the serpent would eat dust. Do serpents really eat dust? I don't think so. So I would have to wonder what all of that really means.
: AmoI think that basically summarizes the main points recorded concerning the curse without expounding upon the implications and over all effect of such changes. This is what scripture simply, plainly, and conclusively states.
Actually the only curse, according to the Bible, which God delivered concerned the ground and that was thorns and thistles. You have called everything due to "a curse". The Bible presents no curse such as you cite was ever really delivered except for the curse against the ground.
https://www.wnd.com/2017/09/oort-cloud-fact-fiction-or-phantom-rescue-device-for-evolution/
Good one.
Off the top of my head, the first and most obvious it seems to me, would be that all things were no longer good. God pronounced all things good at the end of each day of creation, after the curse all things obviously were and are no longer good.
But the Bible never says that. What you take as obviously, is simply you, not the Bible. You are imposing your own preconceived notions about that. The Bible never says things were no longer "good".
Wrong! Before the fall everything was good, after the fall the curse or curses changed it all. This is not to mention the flood of course, which destroyed the entire existing world which was created good, which scriptures you of course reject.
Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:......................
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;......................
5: 28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29 and he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands,
because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21
because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Rev 22:1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
The curse and its effects upon the entire world will not be removed until the creation of the new heaven and new earth. This world was destroyed once already by water due to the curse, and it will be destroyed once more by fire due to the curse. You reject this testimony because you have chosen a faith(theory of evolution) other than that which is built upon the word of God.
Obviously death was introduced through disobedience and was and is part of the curse, as foretold by God Himself. Thus humanity came from the dust and to the dust they now return.
No, Obviously not. It is true that they were ejected from the Garden because they sinned. But physical death occurred when they were ejected from the Garden and no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life. That is what the Bible says. Again there is no indication whatsoever that the physiology of the human body was changed in any way.
Wrong!
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.Adam and Eve's sin produced death which was and is part of the curse. After the fall they were separated from the tree of life, and were therefore doomed to die and return to the dust from which God created them. Your faith in the word of men above the word of God requires that you deny the same.
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21
that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.......
6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?
for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.........
7:5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members
to bring forth fruit unto death......................
13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.....................
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin........................
8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from
the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
1 Cor 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Since the fall, we all live in bodies of death. Jesus Christ alone can change this for any of us. Death is the result of sin, because it causes separation from God, and God alone sustains life. You cannot accept this plain testimony of scripture because you have chosen faith in the words of men(theory of evolution) above the word of God.
Before the fall and curse God created and provided food for all life, afterward that provision was removed for humanity and perverted in all creation.
Here again that is simply an assumption on your part.
Wrong! It is the testimony of scripture.
Gen 2:8 And
the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
God planted the garden and grew the trees from which Adam and Eve ate, which they were to keep and dress. After the fall, they were removed from the garden and cursed to grow their own food and to feed themselves through toil and sweat and the work of their own hands among thorns and thistles. You deny this testimony of scripture because you have placed more faith in the words of men(theory of evolution) than the word of God.
Humanity would now have to provide food for substance themselves by the sweat of their brow and toil of their own hands. They would also have to battle with thorns and thistles and the like which apparently did not exist previously.
The only real difference here is that apparently there were no thorns and thistles in the Garden. Once God ejected him from the Garden he was forced to contend with such things that grew outside of the Garden. But it is clear that he had to work for his food by working and tending the Garden.
Big difference. God grew the first garden and it was perfect and good, no doubt easy to keep and dress. Man had to grow his own from then on. He was not perfect, the ground was no longer perfect, and thorns and thistles would now have to be contended with. The differences are no doubt greater than can be conveyed in the very short account of the creation and fall. You only seek to minimize them because you have chosen faith in men's word(theory if evolution) above God's word.
Child bearing would apparently be much harder on women than it would have been apart from the curse, and women would take a less equal position in relationship to men than God apparently originally intended.
I would argue that God had not been surprised by all of this and so there is no reason to think that anything about the physiology of Eve actually changed. He was prepared for Adam's disobedience from before creation. We know that because God says that His plan of salvation was before all creation (! Peter 1:20).
Yes, I know, you would and do continually argue that neither God's word nor His word through His chosen servants means what it actually says. This you do because you place the testimony of man's word (theory of evolution) above the testimony of God's word. Thus you belittle or minimize all the effects of the fall and even deny the flood.
Oh yes, serpents apparently would undergo physical changes that resulted in them crawling on their bellies as they do at present.
It says also that the serpent would eat dust. Do serpents really eat dust? I don't think so. So I would have to wonder what all of that really means.
I think that basically summarizes the main points recorded concerning the curse without expounding upon the implications and over all effect of such changes. This is what scripture simply, plainly, and conclusively states.
Actually the only curse, according to the Bible, which God delivered concerned the ground and that was thorns and thistles. You have called everything due to "a curse". The Bible presents no curse such as you cite was ever really delivered except for the curse against the ground.
Yes, I know of your consistent denial of the word of God because of your misplaced faith in the word of man (theory of evolution). All of the changes we are discussing are presented in scripture as a result of the fall. You will not make this go away by citing a self made technicality concerning the word curse. The creation, fall, and flood accounts do not jive with your misplaced faith in the theory of evolution therefore you must question and confuse simple issues to justify the same.
Ps 33:6
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done;
he commanded, and it stood fast.
To begin with you must take into account that the book of Genesis was written to and for the human population at the time it was written. Genesis was written in the middle of the 5th century BC.; Columbus sailed to the new world in 1492 AD. The difference between the two is 2,518 years.
If you read Genesis taking into account who the people who were hearing these words it is right on mark. And those who waste their time trying to dismiss it fail to see the forest for the trees.
Having said that; discussing the pros and con gives us something to do which is better than robbing to store next door.
In my view of things
::reading::
: tooldtocare Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 10:37:52
To begin with you must take into account that the book of Genesis was written to and for the human population at the time it was written. Genesis was written in the middle of the 5th century BC.; Columbus sailed to the new world in 1492 AD. The difference between the two is 2,518 years.
If you read Genesis taking into account who the people who were hearing these words it is right on mark. And those who waste their time trying to dismiss it fail to see the forest for the trees.
Having said that; discussing the pros and con gives us something to do which is better than robbing to store next door.
In my view of things
::reading::
The record and testimony of scripture is for all humanity at all times. It has and will endure, witness, convict, convert, and eventually judge all.
I just thought this was interesting and this might be a good place for it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/scientists-stumble-upon-40000-year-old-horse-in-siberia/vi-BBLQD8D?ocid=NL_ENUS_A2_20180819_9_1
: Amo Sun Aug 05, 2018 - 12:32:54
The record and testimony of scripture is for all humanity at all times. It has and will endure, witness, convict, convert, and eventually judge all.
The hard line ::crackup::
: geronimo Sun Aug 19, 2018 - 12:18:11
I just thought this was interesting and this might be a good place for it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/scientists-stumble-upon-40000-year-old-horse-in-siberia/vi-BBLQD8D?ocid=NL_ENUS_A2_20180819_9_1
More interesting horse info.
https://creation.com/the-non-evolution-of-the-horse
: Alan Sun Aug 19, 2018 - 13:51:16
The hard line ::crackup::
Isa 55:8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.2 Tim 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child
thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.Yes, this is a hard line for fallen humanity, nonetheless true.
John 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.The majority have, do, and will continue to place greater faith in the things of this world, than the word of God. This will not in any way shape or form effect the accuracy and predicted outcome of the same, by the same. We came from the dust and shall return to the dust, God's word endures forever.
Ps 100 1 (A Psalm of praise.) Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands. 2 Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing. 3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. 4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name. 5
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.Ps 119:158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. 159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. 160
Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Since God shows us His creation, we can confidently believe what He shows us.
Scripture, particularly Genesis, is consistent with evolution, but it is not consistent with YE creation.
: The Barbarian Sun Aug 26, 2018 - 02:30:52
Since God shows us His creation, we can confidently believe what He shows us.
Scripture, particularly Genesis, is consistent with evolution, but it is not consistent with YE creation.
Then why don't you share some of that scripture with us? Present the scripture, then explain why it means what you say it means rather than what it plainly states.
: RB Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:37:57
A WiseMan saying..... Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
Sufficient evidence for Intelligent Design is available, but it is suppressed. Serious questions about the veracity of evolutionary theory have been raised, but they have been ignored.
It is not the sufficiency of evidence that is the issue. It is suppression of it.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
: Choir Loft Mon Aug 27, 2018 - 07:45:29
It is not the sufficiency of evidence that is the issue. It is suppression of it.
It's been said many times before that there just doesn't exist ANY evidence to form a logical objection to evolution and the age of the universe. Add to that, secular science has also never provided any evidence that counters evolution, YEC revolves around a handful of Christians that cling to what they believe to be literal verses in Genesis and from that they establish their agenda.
: Alan Mon Aug 27, 2018 - 08:08:50
It's been said many times before that there just doesn't exist ANY evidence to form a logical objection to evolution and the age of the universe. Add to that, secular science has also never provided any evidence that counters evolution, YEC revolves around a handful of Christians that cling to what they believe to be literal verses in Genesis and from that they establish their agenda.
Why would secular science provide evidence that counters evolution? YEC simply means those who believe the Bible. Others do not.
https://www.allaboutworldview.org/secular-science.htm
Secular Science
Secular Science – Introduction
The core of Secular Science is well-summarized by George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."1
Belief in evolution is as crucial to Humanism's worldview as are its atheistic theology and naturalistic philosophy. In fact, the Humanist's ideas about the origin of life can be considered a special dimension of these disciplines. Without the theory of evolution, the Humanist would have to rely on God as the explanation for life, which would necessarily destroy his atheism. Therefore, every Secular Humanist embraces the theory of evolution.
The Humanist Manifesto I states, "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process."2 This belief is echoed in the Humanist Manifesto II, which claims that "science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces."3 And in Humanist Manifesto 2000 Kurtz says, "The theory of evolution and the standards of ecology should also be studied."4
For the Humanist, atheistic evolution is not one option among many, but rather the only option compatible with their worldview. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is considered an enemy of science.
[/size]
Science is not humanism. Humanism is a Christian movement dating to the Renaissance. You've confused this with secular humanism, which is for most of those who believe in it, an oxymoron.
Science isn't secular humanism, either. It's merely the best way humans can understand the way the physical universe works. Evolution is merely what we observe happening around us in living populations. Evolutionary theory describes how it works.
What most creationists think of as "evolution", are various consequences of evolution, such as common descent. The evidence for common descent is overwhelmng and from many different sources, most notably, many confirmed predictions of the theory.
This is why scientists accept it.
Some forms of creationism, although contradicted by the evidence around us, are not incompatible with scripture. YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine, is in direct opposition to Genesis. However, it is not a salvation issue, and in the long run, it really doesn't matter whether you accept evolution or not.
Then why don't you share some of that scripture with us?
God says in Genesis that life was not created ex nihilo, but rather was produced by other created things, as God intended.
Genesis 1:26 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Present the scripture, then explain why it means what you say it means rather than what it plainly states.
As you see, it plainly states that life came from the Earth, and was not created from nothing. And it says this is what God intended. However, it does not detail how this happened, or how the diversity of life came about. So it's consistent with all sorts of things, including evolution. We accept the fact of evolution because we observe it, not because scripture says anything at all about it, either to support it or deny it. Pretty much the way we accept the reality of protons and the Van Allen Belts.
: Amo Mon Aug 27, 2018 - 21:10:06
Why would secular science provide evidence that counters evolution? YEC simply means those who bereave the Bible. Others do not.
Because if there exists any merit to the works being purported by the YEC's, at least some secular scientists would be on board with the hypothesis, instead what is continuously revealed is that the claims are absurd and cannot be substantiated. Keep in mind that the goal of science is NOT to disprove God, science is much more interested in the facts. Biased agendas are much more in tune with YEC's that continuously divide themselves against the scientific community.
: The Barbarian Tue Aug 28, 2018 - 00:12:31
Science is not humanism. Humanism is a Christian movement dating to the Renaissance. You've confused this with secular humanism, which is for most of those who believe in it, an oxymoron.
Science isn't secular humanism, either. It's merely the best way humans can understand the way the physical universe works. Evolution is merely what we observe happening around us in living populations. Evolutionary theory describes how it works.
What most creationists think of as "evolution", are various consequences of evolution, such as common descent. The evidence for common descent is overwhelmng and from many different sources, most notably, many confirmed predictions of the theory.
This is why scientists accept it.
Some forms of creationism, although contradicted by the evidence around us, are not incompatible with scripture. YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine, is in direct opposition to Genesis. However, it is not a salvation issue, and in the long run, it really doesn't matter whether you accept evolution or not.
God says in Genesis that life was not created ex nihilo, but rather was produced by other created things, as God intended.
Genesis 1:26 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
As you see, it plainly states that life came from the Earth, and was not created from nothing. And it says this is what God intended. However, it does not detail how this happened, or how the diversity of life came about. So it's consistent with all sorts of things, including evolution. We accept the fact of evolution because we observe it, not because scripture says anything at all about it, either to support it or deny it. Pretty much the way we accept the reality of protons and the Van Allen Belts.
I have confused nothing. The article and link provided are not mine. Send your rant to WORLDVIEW.
: Alan Tue Aug 28, 2018 - 05:53:58
Because if there exists any merit to the works being purported by the YEC's, at least some secular scientists would be on board with the hypothesis, instead what is continuously revealed is that the claims are absurd and cannot be substantiated. Keep in mind that the goal of science is NOT to disprove God, science is much more interested in the facts. Biased agendas are much more in tune with YEC's that continuously divide themselves against the scientific community.
HOGWASH! People choose their faith, or world view if you will, then seek to back it up. Some secular scientists have converted in the past, and some who believed scripture have converted as well. Faith is the issue, that is all. Apart from God humanity seeks to establish faith in itself, in its own observations and hypotheses in contrast to the plain testimony of the word of God. This is the faith they have chosen. The term YEC's is just a label given to those whose faith is in the word of God over and above the same.
Heb 11:1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.This is the faith you and yours reject.
I have confused nothing.
You've confused Humanism, which is a Christian movement, with "secular humanism" which is an oxymoron.
Apart from the relation between God and man such as exists in Jesus Christ, all that we said would be equivocal and dangerous and even false. What was said about the relations between divine and beatitude and human happiness, between the glory of God and the glory of man is then an abstract truth: it is the explanation of the basic theses of Christian theology. What we say concerning the relationship of God and man, we say it in Jesus Christ. It is first in Christ that there is a coincidence of divine glory and human glory. It is in him that the encounter between divine beatitude and human happiness takes place. There is no humanity "in relation to God" that was not first realized and prefigured in "Jesus Christ"...In order to fulfill the true humanism, then we must believe in Jesus Christ. There is no humanism without the Gospel.
Karl Barth,
The Faith of the Church The article and link provided are not mine. Send your rant to WORLDVIEW.
Because if there exists any merit to the works being purported by the YEC's, at least some secular scientists would be on board with the hypothesis, instead what is continuously revealed is that the claims are absurd and cannot be substantiated.
Although YE creationism is an error, there is much that is good and Godly in many YE creationists. I'm not suggesting that you think otherwise; I'm merely noting that almost all YE creationists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Keep in mind that the goal of science is NOT to disprove God, science is much more interested in the facts. Biased agendas are much more in tune with YEC's that continuously divide themselves against the scientific community.
It is an unfortunate doctrine, not founded in scripture. Like geocentrism, it gets more attention than it deserves.
: The Barbarian Sat Sep 01, 2018 - 12:32:39
You've confused Humanism, which is a Christian movement, with "secular humanism" which is an oxymoron.
Apart from the relation between God and man such as exists in Jesus Christ, all that we said would be equivocal and dangerous and even false. What was said about the relations between divine and beatitude and human happiness, between the glory of God and the glory of man is then an abstract truth: it is the explanation of the basic theses of Christian theology. What we say concerning the relationship of God and man, we say it in Jesus Christ. It is first in Christ that there is a coincidence of divine glory and human glory. It is in him that the encounter between divine beatitude and human happiness takes place. There is no humanity "in relation to God" that was not first realized and prefigured in "Jesus Christ"...In order to fulfill the true humanism, then we must believe in Jesus Christ. There is no humanism without the Gospel.
Karl Barth, The Faith of the Church
The article and link provided are not mine. Send your rant to WORLDVIEW.
I have confused nothing. Secular science was brought forward in a message as proof against biblical creationism, I provided a link and article that addressed secular science. I care nothing for or about secular humanism, humanism, or other constructs of fallen humanity concerning the spiritual truths and reality of holy scripture. The latter is over and above all of the same and any and all including Karl Barth.
https://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-the-earth-in-time-and-space/
An excellent video and series for any interested in biblical creationism.
: The Barbarian Sat Sep 01, 2018 - 12:36:38
Although YE creationism is an error, there is much that is good and Godly in many YE creationists. I'm not suggesting that you think otherwise; I'm merely noting that almost all YE creationists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Of course but it isn't you or I that feel those that are opposed to our views are "faltering Christians" heading toward doomsday. I personally respect those that would say their faith alone allows them to believe as they do.
: Amo Sat Sep 01, 2018 - 12:57:37
https://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-the-earth-in-time-and-space/
An excellent video and series for any interested in biblical creationism.
And just what makes that an excellent video?
: 4WD Sat Sep 01, 2018 - 17:37:06
And just what makes that an excellent video?
I said excellent video for those interested in biblical creationism, not those apposed to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith
Walter Veith is a converted evolutionist and professor of zoology. He knows exactly what he is arguing, having believed and taught evolution himself for many years.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Walter_Veith
: Alan Sat Sep 01, 2018 - 19:28:53
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Walter_Veith
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:General_disclaimer
http://walterveith.com/index.html
https://everipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith/
Why get second hand info from those who may be agenda driven. Here it from the man himself, and decide for yourself.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=walter+veith+personal+testimony&view=detail&mid=98FBD1575B85BF7D30A398FBD1575B85BF7D30A3&FORM=VIRE
Of course but it isn't you or I that feel those that are opposed to our views are "faltering Christians" heading toward doomsday. I personally respect those that would say their faith alone allows them to believe as they do.
There are many such. Unfortunately, because they recognize that it's not a salvation issue, they don't raise their voices much. So we often get the wrong idea about creationists thereby.
: The Barbarian Mon Sep 03, 2018 - 18:37:17
There are many such. Unfortunately, because they recognize that it's not a salvation issue, they don't raise their voices much. So we often get the wrong idea about creationists thereby.
All lies constitute a very real threat to the salvation of those propagating them.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=devolution+not+evolution&&view=detail&mid=5505901BD3CD867235F15505901BD3CD867235F1&&FORM=VRDGAR
: Amo Sat Sep 08, 2018 - 18:08:23
All lies constitute a very real threat to the salvation of those propagating them.
So then, stop lying rofl
The only way one can understand how everything exists is by faith. Without faith, any understanding, scientific or not, falls short of the truth.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."
All lies constitute a very real threat to the salvation of those propagating them.
I don't think you recognize them as lies. You are mistaken, not trying to deceive. But though you're wrong about this, your salvation isn't at stake.
It's not a good idea to present man's ideas as God's word, however. That is the real mischief that YE creationism does. It sets an unnecessary barrier against those who might otherwise come to Him, but know that YE creationism cannot be true.
: Alan Sat Sep 08, 2018 - 18:24:02
So then, stop lying rofl
God will determine who is lying and who is not. No one will be laughing about it at that time.
: The Barbarian Mon Sep 10, 2018 - 10:31:54
I don't think you recognize them as lies. You are mistaken, not trying to deceive. But though you're wrong about this, your salvation isn't at stake.
It's not a good idea to present man's ideas as God's word, however. That is the real mischief that YE creationism does. It sets an unnecessary barrier against those who might otherwise come to Him, but know that YE creationism cannot be true.
Good example of the end results of believing lies. A complete denial of what scripture simply and conclusively states, followed by the accusation that those who believe such are in error and deception. This demonstrating greater faith in the words of Darwin and his followers, than those of Moses inspired and approved by God Himself. YE creationism is true, Moses was and is right, God's fourth commandment is truth, and you are wrong. Your soul is in danger for believing and propagating lies. God
will judge between our very differing views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1216&v=M2XAekx9ySM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=37&v=K1uZQWbboYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=123&v=jHn0oe19DTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=H43MGAUfWLc
https://creation.com/dinosaur-bones-just-how-old-are-they-really
by Carl Wieland
Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old—because, after all, they have turned to stone, haven't they?
Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with rock minerals.
But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.1
For one thing, it says:
'Bones do not have to be "turned into stone" to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.'2
Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly 'permineralized.' This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn't this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:
'The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.'
So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.
Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally 'fall apart.' So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old.
However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.
There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told:
'The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.'4
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations.
We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin.5 Also, we wrote about 'fresh dinosaur bones' in Alaska.6 Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this:
'An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.'
In summary, therefore:
1. Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.
2. Even when heavily permineralized ('fossilized'), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.
3. Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.
The Bible's account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.
It's only a lie if you're knowingly perpetuating an untruth. For me, there exists absolutely no doubt that evolution is an irrefutable fact; no lies here.
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 10:40:44
It's only a lie if you're knowingly perpetuating an untruth. For me, there exists absolutely no doubt that evolution is an irrefutable fact; no lies here.
Yes, I know of your faith in fallen humanities observations above the words of scripture.
: Amo Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 10:58:00
Yes, I know of your faith in fallen humanities observations above the words of scripture.
It is not above the words of Scripture, but it most definitely is above your lever of understanding. You obviously believe in a flat earth with four "ends" and a sun that
"rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Ecc 1:5); i.e. the sun goes around the earth. Clearly there can be no other way to read that. The Bible says the sun
"hastens to the place where it rises". If would take the faith in fallen humanity's observations to see that any other way.
: 4WD Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 11:12:54
It is not above the words of Scripture, but it most definitely is above your lever of understanding. You obviously believe in a flat earth with four "ends" and a sun that "rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Ecc 1:5); i.e. the sun goes around the earth. Clearly there can be no other way to read that. The Bible says the sun "hastens to the place where it rises". If would take the faith in fallen humanity's observations to see that any other way.
Of course I do, you said so didn't you? That is why evolution is unquestionably true as well, you said so, didn't you? Silly bible, obviously not true, you said so didn't you? By the way, a circle doesn't have four ends.
Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Compared to God you are a puny person, with a puny mind, thinking and expressing puny thoughts. God's thoughts and actions are not, nor have ever been subject to your or any other puny fallen humans observations. The testimony He has given to His servants and recorded for us in the scriptures is as far above all puny fallen human observation as God Himself is above us.
Do all those speaking of the sun rising and setting today think the world is flat because they use this expression? Of course not. Only a puny agenda driven mind would declare it must be so when bible authors made similar statements.
: Amo Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 12:28:20Compared to God you are a puny person, with a puny mind, thinking and expressing puny thoughts.
And of course, you aren't. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 10:40:44
It's only a lie if you're knowingly perpetuating an untruth. For me, there exists absolutely no doubt that evolution is an irrefutable fact; no lies here.
You have faith in evolution. Science calls it a theory.
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 13:50:41You have faith in evolution. Science calls it a theory.
By any measure it is pretty good theory.
: Amo Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 12:28:20
Of course I do, you said so didn't you? That is why evolution is unquestionably true as well, you said so, didn't you? Silly bible, obviously not true, you said so didn't you? By the way, a circle doesn't have four ends.
Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Compared to God you are a puny person, with a puny mind, thinking and expressing puny thoughts. God's thoughts and actions are not, nor have ever been subject to your or any other puny fallen humans observations. The testimony He has given to His servants and recorded for us in the scriptures is as far above all puny fallen human observation as God Himself is above us.
Do all those speaking of the sun rising and setting today think the world is fat because they use this expression? Of course not. Only a puny agenda driven mind would declare it must be so when bible authors made similar statements.
Sorry you've become triggered and agitated over this discussion but breathe, tomorrow is another day ::smile::
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 13:50:41
You have faith in evolution. Science calls it a theory.
A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 14:50:18
Sorry you've become triggered and agitated over this discussion but breathe, tomorrow is another day ::smile::
I'm breathing just fine. If I hadn't been breathing over this discussion, I'd have been gone about a year and a half ago.
: 4WD Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 12:54:57
And of course, you aren't. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Not when I am agreeing with that recorded for us by His chosen servants. Apart from this, I'm just as puny as the rest of us.
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 14:53:22
A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Considered fact by whom? Those who propagate it of course, never those who reject it. Your theory is no fact at all, but in the minds of those who first formed this intellectual idol, and those who fall easy prey to the same.
: Amo Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 17:57:16
Considered fact by whom? Those who propagate it of course, never those who reject it. Your theory is no fact at all, but in the minds of those who first formed this intellectual idol, and those who fall easy prey to the same.
Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 14:53:22
A scientific theory is considered fact, you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
No, a scientific theory is not considered fact. I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis." "Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation. I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact. It is not, however, a fact. When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
You believe that evolution is a fact. It is your faith that guides you to believe it is a fact.
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 20:17:15size=10pt]When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."[/size]
Not quite. Scientific theories cannot be proven true. All that can really be done is to demonstrate that a theory is not true by examination and testing. That is the process followed in all scientific investigations of a theory. Once a theory has passed sufficient and significant testing without any negative findings then it is accepted as true. The theory of current flow in a wire by electrons from a negative charge to the positive, for example, cannot be proven true. It has never been shown to be otherwise. And so it is considered to be correct.
: Texas Conservative Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 20:17:15
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.
: Alan Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 08:35:40
Quote from: Texas Conservative on Yesterday at 20:17:15
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.
That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 18:51:52
Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.
I am not the one who denies religious conviction and faith are part of my reasoning, you are. This to the point of repeating a lie so often that you now believe it. You call the assumptions you make according to your misplaced faith, facts, worshiping at the feet of your own chosen idol.
: Alan Sat Sep 15, 2018 - 18:51:52
Why would anyone reject it? The facts are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Don't bother replying, I already know the answer; religious conviction.
Please do present these facts not more than a couple at a time to be examined and discussed if you will. Your already know my position, it is written for you by the prophets. Please feel free to express why what is written is impossible or unquestionably wrong.
Charles Lyell and his agenda driven theory.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Charles+Lyell+and+Moses&&view=detail&mid=DE7F6FB1D96B6C9E60C1DE7F6FB1D96B6C9E60C1&&FORM=VRDGAR
: Michael2012 Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 09:33:21
I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.
That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?
It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.
: Alan Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 12:40:09
It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.
If it actually is, then the "science" and "evidence" for such is being kept secret. In which case, none of it can be trusted when presented as proof. No "science" can be trusted that hides and conceals evidence and experimentation only to be released under the explanation of those who themselves did the hiding. To the contrary, all such cries out DECEPTION!
Are you in on a secret, or just expressing continued faith in the religion of your choice? It seems highly probable that there is much scientific work going on in the polar regions, especially Antartica, which the public is not privy to. Various nations have been conducting research their for decades now, with little revelation concerning the same. If in fact they have been making important finds, they have also been giving themselves plenty of time to attach their own hypothesis and theory to the same before presenting it. One would think that their would be quite a bit of revealing info stored in all that ice.
: Alan Sun Sep 16, 2018 - 12:40:09Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 09:33:21
Alan:
I disagree, I fully believe the sequence of events will be fully understood and the evidence easily verified within a short time.
Michael:
That I say is faith in science and the scientists, or what is it?
It can't be considered faith once the evidence is laid on the table in black and white. That day is becoming exponentially closer and closer.
But you are referring to a time yet future which you believe, and that you are certain that it will happen. If you don't consider that to be faith, it does not mean it isn't. My impression is that you have strong faith even, that science and scientists will in a very short time lay the evidence on the table, which in other words means that they will have come to know and explain when and how things came to be, or for Christian scientists, when and how God created all things. Such faith in science and in the scientists you have there.
I want you to consider this:
Isaiah 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
Revelation 21: 1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
What do you say of such creation? Will it be in the next billion years of evolutionary creation process or what?
No, a scientific theory is not considered fact.
A scientific theory is an idea or group of idea which have been repeatedly verified by evidence. It seems there is often confusion between evolution (which is an observed fact) and evolutionary theory (which is the repeatedly verified theory that explains it). Sometimes, there's also confusion between the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution, and consequences of evolution such as common descent. They are three different things.
Evolution is merely a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."
You seem to be confusing the phenomenon with the theory that explains it.
"Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation.
Not quite. A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been repeatedly verified by evidence.
I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact. It is not, however, a fact. When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."
Nothing in science is "proven." We can only have logical certainty when we have all the rules and can apply them as needed. In science, we look at the particulars and infer the rules. It's therefore inductive, not deductive.
But it works. Works better than anything else we can do to understand the physical universe.
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
It's directly observed to happen. Can't be much more of a fact than that.
Not quite. A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been repeatedly verified by evidence.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND THEORY
Fact vs Theory
The terms fact and theory are words with different meanings. Although both are used in many different fields of studies, they still manage to have their own distinct definitions that separate one from the other. One particular field, wherein both terms are commonly used is in Science.
In the scientific world, facts (or scientific facts) are what one can readily observe. It can pertain to any objective and real phenomenon may it be the falling of the ball after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences. In this regard, the fact is that the ball will fall. More so, if this test is being done repeatedly under a controlled environment that cancels all unnecessary variables the phenomenon would have become a very obvious and undeniable fact. It is considered a fact because it will remain as true even after several centuries unless there is a more rigid and precise way of measuring a certain phenomenon.
On the contrary, theories in science are likened to the explanations to what has been observed. It is relatively greater in weight to what a hypothesis is. If a hypothesis (an intelligent guess) is the first base of formulating a scientific law then theories are placed at the second base. These are the statements that are assumed to be true (because they seem so) even if there are no hundred percent concrete evidences. Nevertheless, theories are always presented to be true even if the claims in the said theories are mere speculations or a general agreement between a significant numbers of experts. Moreover, theories are the statements that often undergo a series of tests to nullify the claims maid by those who propose them.
To display the difference between fact and theory, a good example is when a report will state that a certain hurricane killed thousands in a particular state in America yesterday because of the reckless mass evacuation spearheaded by the local officials. In this aspect, the fact is that many were killed by the hurricane while the theory is the reason behind the death of these people. Was it only because of the haphazard evacuation plan or was it also because of the intensity of the hurricane among many other reasons? Hence, facts are really the real deal while theories are still unclear although presumed to be true.
1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.
2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.
A hypothesis becomes theory to some, when the evidence is construed to fit their own reasoning concerning the same. There is no proof of evolution, only evidence construed to concoct a theory according to the religious faith of evolutionists. Whose faith is in their own faulty understanding.
It's directly observed to happen. Can't be much more of a fact than that.
It is not directly observed to happen. The same people who created the theory of evolution according to their own desires, claim that simple change is proof of their self exalted false theory. It is only proof the their twisted perception according to their desire for it to be so. It is their story applied to the evidence before all of us, and many disagree with it.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
: Amo Sat Sep 22, 2018 - 17:28:42
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/)
Don't know who wrote the article but it is incorrect. A scientific theory is not a second base proposal of phenomenon, it is an
observed and tested explanation.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work (https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work)
: The Barbarian Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 10:07:41
Nothing in science is "proven."
That's it then.
If nothing in science is "proven", then what does that tell us about science?
: The Barbarian Tue Sep 18, 2018 - 10:07:41
Quote
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
It's directly observed to happen. Can't be much more of a fact than that.
Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed? Or can it even be considered observable, for so even while scientists are convinced that such came about for something like what, 6 million years?
: Alan Sun Sep 23, 2018 - 06:50:47
Don't know who wrote the article but it is incorrect. A scientific theory is not a second base proposal of phenomenon, it is an observed and tested explanation.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work (https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work)
Then evolution is not a theory. Please do present the tests that have proved evolution. Not just change, but the "theory" of evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
Antarctica is a de facto condominium, governed by parties to the Antarctic Treaty System that have consulting status. Twelve countries signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, and thirty-eight have signed it since then. The treaty prohibits military activities and mineral mining, prohibits nuclear explosions and nuclear waste disposal, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone. Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4,000 scientists from many nations.........................
Richard E. Byrd led several voyages to the Antarctic by plane in the 1930s and 1940s. He is credited with implementing mechanised land transport on the continent and conducting extensive geological and biological research.[36] The first women to set foot on Antarctica did so in the 1930s with Caroline Mikkelsen landing on an island of Antarctica in 1935,[37] and Ingrid Christensen stepping onto the mainland in 1937.[38][39][40]
https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Research_stations_in_Antarctica
We've been there a long time now. Government supported scientists from many nations working year round. Every now and then we get some revelations of discovery. We know there were huge tropical forests there in the past, plenty of plant and animal life. There is also a whole lot of speculation and conspiracy theories about many apparent visible anomalies. It doesn't seem as though the year round presence of thousands of scientists from around the world is producing as much info and or scientific data as one would expect. Which begs the question, is such being withheld from the public, or is all that effort not really amounting to much? Not to mention, how much does it cost the tax payers of various nations? Regardless of creation or evolution being the truth, there should certainly be a whole lot of scientific info captured in all that ice. Makes one wonder.
Reply #2596 by Texas Conservative
No, a scientific theory is not considered fact.
Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory
That explains it. It's a theory, because its predictions have been repeatedly verified. Creationists usually don't mean either of these when they speak of evolution. Usually, they are speaking of the consequences of evolution, such as common descent.
I am not confusing "theory" with "hypothesis." "Theory" is the best and most accepted explanation. I can see how you can be confused that it is considered a fact. It is not, however, a fact. When that "theory" is proven true, it is a "fact."
In the proper sense, no theory is proven. In science, we don't know the rules, and infer them from the particulars, like you would by learning a card game by watching people play. Eventually, you'd get pretty good at predicting things, but you could never be absolutely sure you had it all right.
You know, and I know that evolution will not be proven true in our lifetimes. Therefore, it is not a "fact."
The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory is a theory. The consequences are overwhelmingly documented by many, many predictions that have been verified.
Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?
Yep. The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two. The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.
Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed. We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens. We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 03, 2018 - 20:05:09
Quote
Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?
Yep. The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two. The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.
Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed. We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens. We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen.
Contradicting isn't it?
The answer is an obvious NO.
You said "Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon."
Evolution, as to the degree that one directly observes it to happen, may well be a fact in that sense. But with regards the evolution of man, which obviously is not and cannot be directly observed, it remains to be not a fact. What it is, is plain guess and make believe. It can't even be considered a theory. What it really is, is just a hypothesis. And I think it will remain to be just that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcs49gaiUo
Another good one.
: Amo Sat Oct 06, 2018 - 10:47:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcs49gaiUo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcs49gaiUo)
Another good one.
Opinion means nothing. ::rollingeyes::
Is the so-called evolution of man directly observed?
Barbarian observes:
Yep. The evolution of alleles for high-altitude life in Tibetans, and the evolution of an allele against plague, to name two. The recent evolution of HbC against malaria, without the sickle cell consequences for another.
Common descent of all human species has never been directly observed. We haven't even observed the common descent of all H. sapiens. We do, however, have abundant evidence for this, just as we have abundant evidence that a giant redwood tree can grow to maturity, even if no one has directly seen it happen. Creationists are willing to accept the evidence for growth of giant redwoods, but are unwilling to accept the much stronger evidence for human evolution.
Contradicting isn't it?
Yes, it is. But giant redwoods don't contradict the man-made doctrines of YE creationism. And that makes all the difference for them.
You said "Evolution is a fact because it's a directly-observed phenomenon."
Yep. We see it every day.
Evolution, as to the degree that one directly observes it to happen, may well be a fact in that sense.
Just as some growth of a redwood seedling is a fact in that sense.
But with regards the evolution of man, which obviously is not and cannot be directly observed, it remains to be not a fact.
In the sense that the growth of a seedling into a giant redwood remains to be not a fact. In each case, the evidence is overwhelming for it, but if you think facts are only things you've directly observed, then there you are. Again, the difference is that giant redwoods don't contradict your new doctrine men made for you.
What it is, is plain guess and make believe.
As you now realize, it's merely the only reasonable inference from the evidence. We can confidently admit to the fact of human evolution and the growth of seedlings to giant redwoods, even if we've never observed it.
It can't even be considered a theory.
A theory is an idea or group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by testing. As you have learned, there are many, many predictions of evolutionary theory that have been later confirmed. Why not just accept it God's way, and be done with it?
I am going to say this once. And that is that.
If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror... Then your God is not my God.
Try looking at Dr. Job Martin's dvd collections. "Incredible Creatures that defy evolution."
EVOLUTION IS A LIE. It defies science and it is Satanic.
: OneFlewOver Fri Oct 12, 2018 - 05:30:07If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror...
What are you talking about? Partly formed creatures?? Where in evolution is there anything like that?
: OneFlewOverEVOLUTION IS A LIE. It defies science and it is Satanic.
What science does evolution defy?
: OneFlewOver Fri Oct 12, 2018 - 05:30:07
If your idea of God is to experiment down thru the evolutionary years with partly formed creatures leaving a trail of death and horror... Then your God is not my God.
Not so fast, if YOU believe that YOUR interpretation of scripture is the undeniable truth then it is YOU that is in error; you only believe what you believe because that is what you have been told to believe. No where in scripture is evolution denied.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7x6JTfaE-lXivMKhV_9MKTJOQKkyskPVxvBuzrmTRqo4HKIZnoQ)
rofl
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all. "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...
"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."
"I believe in God."
"I believe I'll have another Guinness." (Barbarian gets another Guinness)
Hope that clears things up.
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 17, 2018 - 21:34:42
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all. "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...
"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."
"I believe in God."
"I believe I'll have another Guinness." (Barbarian gets another Guinness)
Hope that clears things up.
Wrong.
If one does not understand the methodology, or the science behind it, then they take it upon faith. Aka "they believe in science."
Period.
::tippinghat::
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 17, 2018 - 21:34:42
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all.
If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.
All of us on this board accept that God exists, because of the evidence.
And all who do not believe in God, reject the evidence.
It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.
The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.
: AVZ Wed Oct 17, 2018 - 23:48:32
If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.
All of us on this board accept that God exists, because of the evidence.
And all who do not believe in God, reject the evidence.
It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.
The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.
Slight difference; the belief in God is based upon the scriptures. Not a thing has changed with that in 2000 years nor can we expect any other evidence to be turned up until of course, it's too late. Science OTOH continuously reveals new evidence that confirms prior beliefs and will undoubtedly continue on that path of progression until man is no longer capable.
A man can study the scriptures and base his opinion based on the pages within, his spirituality may have been heightened, intelligent deduction may have been applied, or quite possibly those pages defined the very thing that the man had always loosely believed, but whatever the reason that man chose to believe was due to a heightened faith. Science OTOH will eventually confirm it's many theories in some form or another, regardless of whether we believe them today as plausible or not.
The thing that we need to differentiate between is "scientists believe...." and "belief", scientists do not journal their works based in whims.
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 05:45:51
Science OTOH continuously reveals new evidence that confirms prior beliefs and will undoubtedly continue on that path of progression until man is no longer capable.
Science also runs into evidence continuously that refutes prior beliefs.
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 05:45:51
Science OTOH will eventually confirm it's many theories in some form or another, regardless of whether we believe them today as plausible or not.
That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.
They may as well all be refuted some day, or they may even never be resolved.
Its a good thing we have scripture that hasn't been refuted in over 2000 years.
Its far more reliable than science.
: AVZ Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 06:35:21
Science also runs into evidence continuously that refutes prior beliefs.
Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?
: AVZ
That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.
Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2", the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.
: AVZ
Its a good thing we have scripture that hasn't been refuted in over 2000 years.
It is most certainly refuted by many, since it cannot be
proven it must be taken by faith for those that believe, unlike science that is on a sure and steady path of progression, the modern world we live in is proof positive of that.
To "believe" something or someone does not mean the same as to "believe in" something or someone. That is true in both English and Greek. In English there is a nuanced distinction between the words belief and faith; but not in the Greek.
The verb to "believe in" something or someone is to "have faith" in something or someone. That is the definition both in English and in Greek. And in the Greek there are not two different words for believe and have faith. The same is true for the noun "belief" and "faith"; both are translations from the same Greek word.
There is far too much that is thrown around with the words believe and faith where the actual distinction in meaning is obscured or nuanced inappropriately. And that is most definitely happening here in this discussion.
Alan, you said, [quote suthor=Alan]...the belief in God is based upon the scriptures...[/quote]. Paul tells us that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20). That concerns God, the creator. God declares that creation itself, the very fact of our physical existence of the universe and every thing in it is evidence of the existence of God. Most of the religions of the world carry the existence of " a god". But that tells us almost nothing about God. It is most of what we know as God, the ruler and the redeemer, that we learn from the Scriptures.
There is so much that needs to be understood about all of this, otherwise in discussions such as this one about evolution and whether or not it is true too often people simply talk past one another.
The simple truth is that a "belief in" science and a "belief in" God are not at all mutually exclusive. They are for the most part completely unrelated. Most of the problems that arise such as the problems being exhibited here in the discussion about evolution arise because of completely inappropriate mixing and adulteration of the evidence for either or both.
: AVZ Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 06:35:21That's nothing more than wishful thinking. You cant prove one way or the other that scientific theories will be confirmed some day.
All you have shown here is that you know so little about science, scientists or scientific theories that you should recuse yourself from any discussion involving them. Scientific theories are confirmed all the time. The scientific theory of electromagnetism is confirmed every time you turn on the light. In fact a scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has been confirmed. That is the definition.
: 4WD Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 07:20:24
Alan, you said, . Paul tells us that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20). That concerns God, the creator. God declares that creation itself, the very fact of our physical existence of the universe and every thing in it is evidence of the existence of God. Most of the religions of the world carry the existence of " a god". But that tells us almost nothing about God. It is most of what we know as God, the ruler and the redeemer, that we learn from the Scriptures.
Since our education system never mentions a word regarding creation, nor has it for years, the idea of a God is a remote possibility for many people today. Even myself, growing up 4 -5 decades ago never knew a thing about God nor was I ever taught it at home, school, or by peers.
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 09:13:02Since our education system never mentions a word regarding creation, nor has it for years, the idea of a God is a remote possibility for many people today. Even myself, growing up 4 -5 decades ago never knew a thing about God nor was I ever taught it at home, school, or by peers.
I am not sure what your point is. As we look at civilizations throughout history, it is clear that virtually every one of them expressed some notion about God as creator of the universe. It seems to be almost an inherent belief in mankind. Anything specific about the one true God, must come from God Himself. We have that in the form of Scripture and Scripture alone.
There also seems to be an inherent sense of "right" and "wrong" also even though the specifics of what is right and what is wrong may vary widely. Here again the truth of what is truly right and wrong comes almost entirely from Scripture, from God Himself.
Barbarian observes:
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all. "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...
"I believe that this bolt comes from a linotype press."
"I believe in God."
"I believe I'll have another Guinness." (Barbarian gets another Guinness)
Hope that clears things up.
Wrong.
Nope. That's how it is. The argument is based on conflating those different meanings of "believe.'
If one does not understand the methodology, or the science behind it, then they take it upon faith.
So if I don't understand how my shower keeps a constant temperature of water, even if the toilet is flushed, I'm taking it on faith? No, I don't think so. I merely know that my plumber knows some things about it that I don't.
Aka "they believe in science."
Ah, the first meaning I cited. Quite different from the third meaning.
There also seems to be an inherent sense of "right" and "wrong" also even though the specifics of what is right and what is wrong may vary widely. Here again the truth of what is truly right and wrong comes almost entirely from Scripture, from God Himself.
That's the only absolute source. But as St. Paul says, the Gentiles have natural law to guide them.
Romans 2:14-16 When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do instinctively things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, to which their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
It seems there is no excuse; in every one of us, the knowledge of good and evil exists and we are accountable even if we never heard of Jesus or His teachings, for those things that are written in our hearts.
Barbarian observes:
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all.
If what you say is true, then one does also not "believe in" God.
God says otherwise. We are, after all, justified by faith as well as by works, according to Him.
It still boils down to the same, both science and faith are a believe in evidence.
Aquinas might very well agree with you; the Thomist tradition says that one can logically demonstrate the fact of God. But that's not the same thing as evidence. St. Tom is speaking of deduction from first principles, and science is inductive, where we infer the principles from the evidence. Both ways work, but they work in a fundamentally different way.
The obfuscation only starts when scientists start making claims that their evidence is fact that is not really a fact but still beyond refute until it is refuted.
You're confusing facts like evolution, with the theory that explains it. Since we directly observe macroevolution, that's a fact. Common descent is a theory. It's a theory because it's been validated by confirmed predictions to the point that it's foolish to argue against it.
Would you like to see some of that?
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 07:13:14
Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?
Sure. The earth is flat vs the earth is round, the earth is the center of our solar system vs the sun is the center of our solar system
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 07:13:14
Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2", the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.
Again, as I said, you believe the evidence. In this case you believe that the Mars Rover took correct readings, and that those readings were correctly transmitted and interpreted.
I know it is unlikely incorrect readings were taken and interpreted, but you simply cannot exclude the possibility.
Hence you believe that the Mars Rover functions correctly, the data was correctly transferred, and readings were correctly interpreted.
: Alan Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 07:13:14
It is most certainly refuted by many, since it cannot be proven it must be taken by faith for those that believe, unlike science that is on a sure and steady path of progression, the modern world we live in is proof positive of that.
And here is where confusion sets in.
People like you or Barbarian arbitrarily assign and expect interpretations for the terms proof, evidence, faith or believe. And you do so inconsistently.
Give you an example:
It is scientific fact that a virgin birth is impossible, yet you believe there was, and you find it perfectly rational to do so.
Barbarian would call the notion to believe in a virgin birth "foolish to argue".
Now both of you can have this belief because you do not expect scientific evidence for something you consider beyond science.
But when it comes to other notions, such as a 6 day creation, you take another position.
In this case scientific evidence overrules any objection, and you find any objection irrational.
To speak with Barbarians words: "it's foolish to argue against it"
So both of you just arbitrarily draw different labels and paste them on topics the way you deem fit, and in accordance with your own beliefs.
So the problem is that you expect scientific evidence.
However, the truth of an event is not determined by evidence. Something can be completely true, and therefore intelligible to believe, without the need for evidence to exist.
Also, what is evidence for you may be irrational to another.
Take Paul for example.
On the way to Damascus he got all the evidence he needed that Jesus was alive.
But that evidence is indisputable evidence for Paul and those who believe Paul. Others may reject it.
Some people read the Bible, and find it compelling enough that it becomes indisputable evidence.
Other read it and reject the same book by lack of evidence.
I believe in a literal 6 day creation, and I reject common descent.
Why? Because the Bible says so, and I find the evidence of scripture far more compelling that scientific evidence that claims otherwise.
By belief is vested on evidence as much as any scientist vesting his beliefs on scientific evidence.
Belief is belief, evidence is evidence.
There is no difference.
: The Barbarian Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 15:54:11Barbarian observes:
One does not "believe in" science. One accepts it on the evidence or rejects it on the evidence. That is all. "Belief" is often used as an obfuscation...
Barbarian observes incorrectly. "Believing in" something is the same as "having faith in" something. They have two main connotations. The first is usually called assent (sometimes, belief). Assent is an act of the mind, a judgment of the intellect that a particular idea or statement is true; some we know to be true by personal experience or by logical reasoning; some that we accept (assent) are those that enter our consciousness via the testimony of other people. This applies to all ideas accepted on the authority of someone else's testimony,
whether religious or secular. The second connotation or aspect of "believing in" is trust. Whereas assent is a judgment of the mind regarding the truth of a statement, trust is a decision of the will to act upon the truth assented to. It is a personal surrender to the implications and consequences of this truth. Such trust is most often directed toward persons. To trust a person is to surrender ourselves or something in our power to that person, as when we place our health and life in the hands of a doctor, or our children into the care of a baby-sitter, or our country into the hands of a particular presidential candidate. But in much the same way we direct our trust in non-persons as well.
We, including you Barbarian, not only believe the science, but we also put our trust in it every moment of our lives. When one steps into a plane to fly from one place to another, while he may not understand at all the science of the dynamics of compressible fluids, he believes it and trusts that it will hold true throughout the entire flight. The evidence that you speak of provides for the assent, the mental acceptance of the truth. When one dives into the ocean, lake or pool in the back yard one both believes the science of Archimedes' principle, whether he actually understands it or not, and trusts that it applies to the human body in water.
So yes, Barbarian, you first accept the evidence [the mental assent] and then you place your trust in science. That is believing in science.
Sure. The earth is flat vs the earth is round,
You think scientists said the Earth is flat? When do you think they said that?
Alan writes:
Hmmm, you don't read much of this stuff do you? Simple things like "we believe the atmosphere of Mars primarily consists of CO2", the Mars Rover did indeed confirm that belief. Just a small example of how beliefs become confirmed.
Again, as I said, you believe the evidence.
Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."
Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.
It is scientific fact that a virgin birth is impossible,
Actually, it's not. It's called "parthenogenesis." Extremely unlikely for humans. However, miracles are not ruled out by science. Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.
Barbarian would call the notion to believe in a virgin birth "foolish to argue".
Nope. See above. You're the victim of those guys who got you mixed up about the different meanings of "belief." So you just arbitrarily draw different labels and paste them on topics the way you deem fit, and in accordance with your own beliefs.
This is the basis of Jesus' discussion with Thomas after the Resurrection. He clearly showed the difference between faith and conclusions based on evidence. Faith wasn't good enough for Thomas, and he had to be shown.
I believe in a literal 6 day creation, and I reject common descent.
Why?
Because you've chosen to believe men rather than God. The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent. It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.
If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?
So yes, Barbarian, you first accept the evidence [the mental assent] and then you place your trust in science. That is believing in science.
The first definition? Conclusion, based on evidence? True. But that is not assent based on faith. Two different things.
: AVZ Thu Oct 18, 2018 - 20:37:04So the problem is that you expect scientific evidence.
However, the truth of an event is not determined by evidence. Something can be completely true, and therefore intelligible to believe, without the need for evidence to exist.
The truth of an event is determined completely and only by evidence. Without evidence there is no way to even know the event occurred. The evidence need not be by ones own personal observation, but there must be evidence of the event presented by someone or some thing.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:18:12The first definition? Conclusion, based on evidence? True. But that is not assent based on faith. Two different things.
You are confused about the word faith. The English word "faith" is the same as "belief in". To have faith in someone or some thing is to believe in that someone or some thing. Believing in, i.e., to have faith, consists of both assent and trust. Assent is not based upon faith. Assent is based upon evidence. Faith is assent plus trust. That was/is what the whole book of James is really about. He said, paraphrasing, "you believe God exists, good for you; even demons believe that". But that is not enough. You must also trust and that trust is shown by your actions; "believing without actions is not faith [is not believing in].
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:15:58
You think scientists said the Earth is flat? When do you think they said that?
Uhm...that was not the question. The question was:"Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?"
The earth being flat vs the earth being round perfectly fits the bill
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:15:58
Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."
Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.
That of course is not true.
Jesus Himself said it was not true:
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."Faith can very well be vested on or supported by visible evidence.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:15:58
Actually, it's not. It's called "parthenogenesis." Extremely unlikely for humans. However, miracles are not ruled out by science. Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.
Again you are being inconsistent and pick and choose your explanations arbitrarily.
Let say for a second that indeed there is a scientific explanation for the Virgin Birth, and lets assume such an embryo would be viable.
In that case you would have a perfectly rational scientific explanation.
Yet you decide, for unknown reasons, to reject that scientific explanation and choose to believe the supernatural explanation.
On the other hand we have common descent.
In this case you could as well believe the supernatural explanation, and believe what the Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth.
Yet here, again for an unknown reason, you decide to reject the supernatural explanation and arbitrarily go for the scientific explanation.
In both cases the scientific explanation represent a belief that is vested on abysmal odds that such a natural event would have taken place, could have taken place and produce something viable.
Suprisingly however, you declare one set of believes "foolish to argue" and the other "rational".
The fact is that you choose one thing to be true by your own understanding, and reject the other for the same reason.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:15:58
The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent. It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.
The Bible clearly denies common descent:
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"On top of that it also lists, by day, how the diversity of living things came to be: "And God said let there be...:"
It is not the Bible that is in any shape or form unclear. You can read this to an adult or a child, the creation story is fully intelligible and everybody knows exactly what it means.
Again, the fact is that you choose one thing to be true by your own understanding, and reject the other for the same reason.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 19, 2018 - 07:15:58
If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?
I dont understand your question. My faith is not vested on two different things.
My faith is vested on one thing: The Bible
There is always room to learn new things, and its good fun to learn about evolution and common descent.
Unfortunately these notions contradict scripture, and can therefore not be true.
Never does evidence refute prior theories, it can add or subtract to the theory, but not squash it. Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Superseded theories
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[1] Thus, it is a mark of good science if a discipline has a growing list of superseded theories, and conversely, a lack of superseded theories can indicate problems in following the use of the scientific method.
The link provided above lists many theories proved wrong.
You are confused about the word faith. The English word "faith" is the same as "belief in".[/quote]
Faith is one of the meanings of "believe in."
To have faith in someone or some thing is to believe in that someone or some thing.
I believe in the first amendment. Do I therefore have faith, or do I believe in it, because the evidence shows that successful societies have individual rights?
Believing in, i.e., to have faith, consists of both assent and trust. Assent is not based upon faith.
Can be. It merely says "agreement", although it often is used as "agreement with consideration." I am not aware of it meaning "agreement only with evidence."
That was/is what the whole book of James is really about. He said, paraphrasing, "you believe God exists, good for you; even demons believe that". But that is not enough. You must also trust and that trust is shown by your actions; "believing without actions is not faith [is not believing in].
Hadn't thought about that. James is saying that faith without works is dead. So assent would be trust in the sense of acting on faith?
Uhm...that was not the question. The question was:"Can you name a situation where a previously scientific belief had been completely turned around?"
The earth being flat vs the earth being round perfectly fits the bill
Don't see how. The earliest people even to approach being scientists were aware that the Earth is round.
Barbarian, regarding conflation of different meanings of "believe:"
Ah, the first meaning "conclusion based on evidence."
Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.
That of course is not true.
Jesus Himself said it was not true:
Nope. In fact he said exactly that:
John 20:27Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. [28] Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. [29] Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
(claim that science says virgin births are impossible)
Actually, it's not. It's called "parthenogenesis." Extremely unlikely for humans. However, miracles are not ruled out by science. Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.
Again you are being inconsistent and pick and choose your explanations arbitrarily.
I'm just showing you the facts. First, parthenogenesis is not unknown. Second, science does not rule out miracles. So it couldn't deny the Immaculate Conception, since it was a miracle.
Let say for a second that indeed there is a scientific explanation for the Virgin Birth, and lets assume such an embryo would be viable.
Moot point, since it's a miracle, which science does not deny.
On the other hand we have common descent.
Here, the Bible says nothing at all about it, and the evidence, as even honest YE creationists admit, is very strong. So we accept the fact of evolution being directly observed, and not that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. And that's that.
Barbarian observes:
The Bible neither promotes nor denies common descent. It doesn't say how the diversity of living things came to be, and of course, because it speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal account.
The Bible clearly denies common descent:
Nope. The modern revision of YE creationists denies it, but that's not the Bible.
Barbarian, on conflating different meanings of "believe":
If your faith depends on conflating two different things, isn't that a sign that there's more for you to learn?
I dont understand your question. My faith is not vested on two different things.
My faith is vested on one thing: The Bible
And in man's revision of Genesis. That's two things.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 21, 2018 - 15:53:23 So assent would be trust in the sense of acting on faith?
Assent and trust are not the same. I can believe, assent to the fact, that you are a trained biologist. That doesn't mean I trust what you say about biology. I think perhaps Amo is an example of that.
: The Barbarian Which, as you know, is not the same as faith, which is belief without seeing the evidence.
The Bible provides the evidence. That is, after all, the purpose of the Bible. You describe evidence for evolution, but I suspect that you have not actually seen all or any of that yourself but rather rely upon what you have read and heard from sources you trust to be accurate. Evidence doesn't necessarily require personal observation. God has provided the Bible with all that is necessary for us to believe what it says. That is the evidence. The fact that we have not personally seen the events presented in the Bible doesn't mean that there is no evidence.
: The Barbarian Sun Oct 21, 2018 - 16:06:27
]
(claim that science says virgin births are impossible)
Actually, it's not. It's called "parthenogenesis." Extremely unlikely for humans. However, miracles are not ruled out by science. Hence we believe by faith, not evidence, that there was a virgin birth.
I'm just showing you the facts. First, parthenogenesis is not unknown. Second, science does not rule out miracles. So it couldn't deny the Immaculate Conception, since it was a miracle.
Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible. Now you can go back to believing in science.
: Texas Conservative Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 07:22:46
Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.
Not if God utilized the insemination process to start the miracle.
: Texas Conservative Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 07:22:46Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.
A supernatural act of God is not scientifically impossible. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the scope of science.
Virgin birth of a male is scientifically impossible.
Highly unlikely. So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know. But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans. But not impossible. Science is very careful about using the word "impossible." Guess why.
Since science does not rule out the miraculous, no scientific theory be able to deny such things are possible.
Now you can go back to believing in science.
As you see, one does not "believe in" science (the second meaning). One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions. And yes, I've observed evolution. Anyone who's willing to spend a few months paying attention can do that.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 09:12:52
Highly unlikely. So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know. But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans. But not impossible. Science is very careful about using the word "impossible." Guess why.
Parthenogenesis in humans is only theoretical and is based on extra abysmal odds.
However, the embryo it produces is not viable for life as the process requires part of the gene information provided by the mother, and part of the gene information provided by the father.
Some parts are available with the mother, but are dormant, and some parts are only available with the father.
Parthenogenesis has never been observed in humans, or for all that matters in mammals.
But since we are now discussing the term "impossible", I do have a question for you.
Is it impossible that God created the world in 6 x 24 hour days in exactly the way the Bible describes?
Parthenogenesis in humans is only theoretical and is based on extra abysmal odds.
Yep. But then so is the existence of the order in a well-shuffled deck of cards. Abysmally unlikely things happen every day.
However, the embryo it produces is not viable for life as the process requires part of the gene information provided by the mother, and part of the gene information provided by the father.
Only on the Y chromosome, although a lot of defects due to harmful recessives might occur.
Parthenogenesis has never been observed in humans, or for all that matters in mammals.
Whiptail lizards, for example, reproduce that way. One species of blind snakes does so, and Komodo dragons can occasionally do so. No mammals that I can think of.
But since we are now discussing the term "impossible", I do have a question for you.
Sure.
Is it impossible that God created the world in 6 x 24 hour days in exactly the way the Bible describes?
That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account. It is possible for Him to do such a thing, but if you believe that the Bible is God's word, then a literal 6-day creation is inconsistent with scripture.
And of course, there are lots of things that it's possible for God to do, that He has never done.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 09:12:52
Highly unlikely. So far, it's only been observed to happen in aphids, as far as I know. But it's even more unlikely than parthenogenesis in humans. But not impossible. Science is very careful about using the word "impossible." Guess why.
Since science does not rule out the miraculous, no scientific theory be able to deny such things are possible.
As you see, one does not "believe in" science (the second meaning). One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions. And yes, I've observed evolution. Anyone who's willing to spend a few months paying attention can do that.
Not unlikely, impossible. If a human woman were to be able to become pregnant via parthenogenesis, the resulting baby would be female.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 09:12:52
One merely observes the evidence, and makes conclusions. And yes, I've observed evolution.
So science rest upon the human eyes, ears, nose, and the rest of the human faculties. And we can't deny that the human is not infallible. Scriptures say, if you do believe the scriptures, that man, the human, is with a sinful nature, and with a carnal mind. With this truth about the human, one would not fail to realize what science then is about and made of.
Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him. Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions. Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth. The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth. So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions. Our faith is in the infallible God. In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows. Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions? I would say that doing so is foolishness.
Also, nothing about it concerns the spiritual realities, unless they would come up with a theory of the evolution of the spirit, perhaps.
You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man. And even still, that only is your fallible observation and conclusion. Your observation and conclusion, if it were right, does not change the truth. But if it were wrong, it puts forth a lie as though it is the truth. And that is most certainly an evil no Christian would want to happen.
So science rest upon the human eyes, ears, nose, and the rest of the human faculties.
Yep.
And we can't deny that the human is not infallible.
If we were infallible, everyone would agree about God.
Scriptures say, if you do believe the scriptures, that man, the human, is with a sinful nature, and with a carnal mind. With this truth about the human, one would not fail to realize what science then is about and made of.
It's just the best method humans have for understanding the physical universe.
Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.
Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.
Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt. Not bad, um?
Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.
The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.
It's like when you wake up and get out of bed. You expect your feet to hit the floor. You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen. Science is like that.
So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.
Never have faith in science. Look at the evidence and conclude from there.
Our faith is in the infallible God.
Good. Faith is for God, and evidence is for science. Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them.
In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.
But fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.
Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?
Good question.
I would say that doing so is foolishness.
Reason can help you, but of course, you are still fallible.
You may say and claim you observed evolution,
Yep.
but certainly not the evolution of man.
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have. Man continues to evolve, of course. Remember what "evolution" is in biology.
Not unlikely, impossible. If a human woman were to be able to become pregnant via parthenogenesis, the resulting baby would be female.
Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman. Then it could be.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 17:02:21
That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account. It is possible for Him to do such a thing, but if you believe that the Bible is God's word, then a literal 6-day creation is inconsistent with scripture.
And of course, there are lots of things that it's possible for God to do, that He has never done.
The above is a logical contradiction.
Statement a) It is possible for Him to do such a thing
Statement b) That is logically impossible, since the Bible creation story is not a literal account.
If it is possible for God to create the world in 6 days, then it is not only possible that the Bible creation story is a literal account...it would be logically coherent that the Bible creation story is a literal account.
Whether I believe or not believe the Bible is Gods word has nothing to do with how consistent scripture is.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:48:23
Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman. Then it could be.
So you are actually saying that the Virgin Birth perhaps was not a miracle?
Apparently you don't refute my post in reply #2656.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.
Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.
Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt. Not bad, um?
So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.
Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.
It's like when you wake up and get out of bed. You expect your feet to hit the floor. You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen. Science is like that.
Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.
Never have faith in science. Look at the evidence and conclude from there.
So you don't have faith in science. And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.
How about in God, do you have faith? If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
Our faith is in the infallible God.
Good. Faith is for God, and evidence is for science. Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them
.
That may be for you, not for me. For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the difference perhaps, our understanding of what faith is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you not claim to have faith in Jesus Christ? If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ. And I'd say, that is not faith at all.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.
But fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.
Perhaps. But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?
Good question.
And?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:45:14
You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have. Man continues to evolve, of course. Remember what "evolution" is in biology.
The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man. You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that man continues to evolve, but that will not change anything too.
So you are actually saying that the Virgin Birth perhaps was not a miracle?
Since God says it was His intervention, I believe Him.
Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.
Barbarian observes:
Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.
Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.
If it was otherwise, then everyone would agree about it. But as you see, there is far more disagreement about God than about science. So yes, fallible man trying to figure it out.
Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.
Barbarian observes:
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt. Not bad, um?
So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement?
It works. Creationism doesn't.
Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.
Barbarian observes:
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.
Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say.
It really has only one thing going for it. It works. But that's a pretty big thing.
It's like when you wake up and get out of bed. You expect your feet to hit the floor. You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen. Science is like that.
Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.
If you happen to like computers or modern medical care, it does.
So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.
Barbarian suggests:
Never have faith in science. Look at the evidence and conclude from there.
So you don't have faith in science.
I have faith in God. Science has to provide evidence. It's why creationism isn't science.
And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.
Now, you're wising up.
How about in God, do you have faith?
As God says, one is justified by faith as well as by works. So a Christian must have faith.
If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God?
Good question. Science can't actually replace faith for you. You have to do that for yourself. However, I have moments when my little understanding of His creation puts me in awe and worship of His wisdom and goodness. Does that count?
Barbarian explains Christians:
Our faith is in the infallible God. Faith is for God, and evidence is for science. Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them
That may be for you, not for me.
Well, I've spent a lifetime learning about both of them, so I might have a different perspective than one who is less familiar with one or both.
For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Unless you start adding things to what He actually said. Then, it's a problem. This is the flaw of YE creationism. It asserts man's word for God's.
If you have faith in Jesus Christ, trust that what He actually told you is sufficient.
If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ.
Notice that there are many, many things about Jesus on which Christians do not agree. At best only one of the dozens of sides can be right. On the other hand, the message He left us is universal among Christians. So I'd say you were safe on those things.
And the wonderful thing is, that's all you need for salvation. Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it.
Barbarian observes:
Fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.
Perhaps.
No perhaps about it. All those different denominations all saying different things... there it is.
But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.
Then be happy in that which unites Christians and don't get caught up in men's additions.
Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?
Barbarian observes:
Good question.
And?
Instead of adding things to Christianity, each man believing what is right in his eyes, just accept it as it is.
You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.
Barbarian observes:
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have. Man continues to evolve, of course. Remember what "evolution" is in biology.
The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man.
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood. You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that giant redwoods can grow from seeds, but that will not change anything too.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 11:42:50
Since God says it was His intervention, I believe Him.
In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
Yet you believe and promote that Adam descended from apes.
For both scenarios you have a scientific alternative, so why not be consistent?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.
Not true.
This has been observed thousands of times and can be observed every single day.
: AVZ Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:14:17In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
Yet you believe and promote that Adam descended from apes.
The Bible says that you are made of dust. How do you explain that? And how is that different from Adam?
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 23:48:23
Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman. Then it could be.
No, because if the woman had aneuploidy, she would be infertile.
https://evolvegene.com/your-genetics-may-be-preventing-you-from-conceiving-a-child/
: Alan Mon Oct 22, 2018 - 08:40:19
Not if God utilized the insemination process to start the miracle.
It is still impossible via science. Science does not allow for God working. It explains natural processes or seeks to do so. With the natural processes God put in place, a virgin birth is impossible.
God directly interfered in the birth of Jesus Christ. Science has no way to account for that, and I don't believe your average scientist would even allow for that.
In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
The only difference is, you don't approve of the way he did it.
No, because if the woman had aneuploidy, she would be infertile.
Nope. And in at least one form of observed aneuploidy, a woman gave birth to an XX individual who was male.
Guess how that happened.
Barbarian observes:
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.
Not true.
Absolutely true. No one could ever live long enough to observe it.
This has been observed thousands of times and can be observed every single day.
Ah, you're talking about growing from a seed to a small tree. That's microgrowth. Everyone knows that microgrowth is true. But as you know, macrogrowth is impossible, since no one has ever seen it happen.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.
If it was otherwise, then everyone would agree about it. But as you see, there is far more disagreement about God than about science. So yes, fallible man trying to figure it out.
The point remains, science is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.
On the other hand, Theology is about understanding God, who created these physical realities. Man understand differently. Why? One is, God is Spirit. And as scriptures say, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned." With that then, Theology is not a matter of discernment by observation and conclusion, but by the spirit.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.
Barbarian observes:
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt. Not bad, um?
So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement?
It works. Creationism doesn't.
Well, you may see it that way for you. How that works and works for you is not the point. The point is simply that science is nothing but scientist's fallible observations and conclusions.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.
Barbarian observes:
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.
Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say.
It really has only one thing going for it. It works. But that's a pretty big thing.
And again, that is beyond the point.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.
It's like when you wake up and get out of bed. You expect your feet to hit the floor. You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen. Science is like that.
Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.
If you happen to like computers or modern medical care, it does.
You are actually telling me that liking computers or modern medical care turns the sad thing that scientists "even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth", into a happy one? Well, if that is the case for you, it certainly is not for me. Wow! You are really something else.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.
Barbarian suggests:
Never have faith in science. Look at the evidence and conclude from there.
So you don't have faith in science.
I have faith in God. Science has to provide evidence. It's why creationism isn't science.
Good to hear, behind all that you say, that you have faith in God.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.
Now, you're wising up.
And you don't agree? Or do you think that man can or you can? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you for I'm pretty sure, you can't nor any scientist can nor all of you combined.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
How about in God, do you have faith?
As God says, one is justified by faith as well as by works. So a Christian must have faith.
Well, I can see now why, for you believe that your justification before God is by faith and by your works. That's a misunderstanding. For justification before God is not by works but by faith. For it if works justify a man before God, then, as scriptures say, man have something to boast about. He certainly can boast about his works, but not before God. I think you should read and study the Bible and know more about God more than science. That I'm sure would do you more good than not.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God?
Good question. Science can't actually replace faith for you. You have to do that for yourself. However, I have moments when my little understanding of His creation puts me in awe and worship of His wisdom and goodness. Does that count?
Anything that glorifies God is right and good and counts. But telling this board that God created man as per science's fallible theory of evolution makes the difference.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
Our faith is in the infallible God.
Faith is for God, and evidence is for science. Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them
That may be for you, not for me.
Well, I've spent a lifetime learning about both of them, so I might have a different perspective than one who is less familiar with one or both.
You could be right about that in human terms. But if you don't realize it yet, with regards God, a lifetime of learning does not mean one knows better by that.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Unless you start adding things to what He actually said. Then, it's a problem. This is the flaw of YE creationism. It asserts man's word for God's.
If you have faith in Jesus Christ, trust that what He actually told you is sufficient.
Yes, I have faith in Jesus Christ and I trust that what He told us (written in scriptures) is sufficient. Is that not the case for you?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ.
Notice that there are many, many things about Jesus on which Christians do not agree. At best only one of the dozens of sides can be right. On the other hand, the message He left us is universal among Christians. So I'd say you were safe on those things.
And the wonderful thing is, that's all you need for salvation. Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it.
No sir. The wonderful thing is that the Lord Jesus Christ is all I need for my salvation.
And with that, I would say, you don't have to put down YE creationist which you do time and again in this forum, just because they don't agree with you about certain scientific fallible theory. With your own words, "Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it".
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.
Barbarian observes:
Fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.
Perhaps.
No perhaps about it. All those different denominations all saying different things... there it is.
Well you don't get to make my opinion. And you must avoid taking what I said into isolated pieces, for they are stripped off of their context. It's misleading by the way.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.
Then be happy in that which unites Christians and don't get caught up in men's additions.
That goes for you as well.
Now, if you agree that we have found truth in God, then to whom else would we go if we're in search for truth? To whom would you point anyone who searches for truth? Of course, to Jesus Christ, is it not?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?
Good question.
And?
Instead of adding things to Christianity, each man believing what is right in his eyes, just accept it as it is.
That's your opinion. I respect that.
Relative to this discussion, I would say, that the Christian must realize that he can't know the truth about God and His works by any man made method other than by the Spirit of God.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 12:05:55
You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.
Barbarian observes:
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have. Man continues to evolve, of course. Remember what "evolution" is in biology.
The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man.
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood. You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that giant redwoods can grow from seeds, but that will not change anything too.
The point remains, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into a man. And you know what that means.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 20:20:12
Barbarian observes:
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.
Absolutely true. No one could ever live long enough to observe it.
Ah, you're talking about growing from a seed to a small tree. That's microgrowth. Everyone knows that microgrowth is true. But as you know, macrogrowth is impossible, since no one has ever seen it happen.
If I give you a Giant Redwood seed and you would put it in soil, after some time you will see it sprout.
You now have a Giant Redwood seedling, which you can observe.
After a few months you will have a Giant Redwood plant, which you can observe
After a few years you will have a small Giant Redwood tree which, you can observe
After a few decades you will have a bigger Giant Redwood tree, which you can observe.
After that the tree will just grow bigger. It will still remain the same tree with the same properties.
All it does is grow bigger.
The observation from seed into Giant Redwood however was made years earlier, right at the start.
I had to look up the term "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" but am unable to find any reference for it.
Is that a scientific term?
Perhaps you can give some guidelines?
What is also obvious is your corruption of the term observation.
There is no scientific requirement that an observation must be made by one person within his life span.
On observation is a thing in and by itself and it may be executed by many different people over many generations if necessary.
What counts in science is the proper recording of the observation.
Even if the observation would last 10 generations, it would still count as 1 observation.
The other objection is your arbitrarily use of the word "direct observation".
"Direct" does not mean "from begin to end".
A Giant Redwood tree does not become a Giant Redwood tree only in the last second of its life.
It became a Giant Redwood tree many many decades before.
In fact a Giant Redwood seed turns into a Giant Redwood tree way within the lifespan of a human.
So, the growth of a seed into a Giant Redwood tree has been directly observed numerous times by numerous people.
What has however never been observed is a Giant Redwood seed producing and Oak Tree or a Pine Tree or a Tomato Plant.
If I give you a Giant Redwood seed and you would put it in soil, after some time you will see it sprout.
(If I give you a population of animals, and you keep them for a while in unusual conditions, you will observe a change in allele frequencies.)
You now have a Giant Redwood seedling, which you can observe.
(You now have a population of evolving animals)
After a few months you will have a Giant Redwood plant, which you can observe
(after a few generations, you will see more genetic changes)
After a few years you will have a small Giant Redwood tree which, you can observe
(After even more generations, you will see significant evolutionary change)
After a few decades you will have a bigger Giant Redwood tree, which you can observe.
After a lot of generations, your population will be noticably different from others like it)
After that the tree will just grow bigger. It will still remain the same tree with the same properties.
(After that, the population will continue to evolve. It will be a different population, with new alleles)
All it does is grow bigger.
(all the population does is continue to evolve, although it might at some point become a new species within your lifetime)
The observation from seed into Giant Redwood however was made years earlier, right at the start.
(the observation of evolution was made years earlier, right at the start)
However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood. You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth. Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen withina lifetime..
I had to look up the term "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" but am unable to find any reference for it.
Is that a scientific term?
It's having a little fun with the creationist revision of "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
Perhaps you can give some guidelines?
A good text on evolution could probably help you, but here's the key: "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.
There is no scientific requirement that an observation must be made by one person within his life span.
Right. So evidence from the past can be used to determine what happened. This is why we know about common descent.
In fact a Giant Redwood seed turns into a Giant Redwood tree way within the lifespan of a human.
Nope. Redwoods grow three to ten feet a year, depending on age. Mature redwoods average 500 to 1000 years old. You're willing to accept the evidence for that, because giant redwoods don't upset your new doctrines of creationism.
Likewise, you don't accept common descent, because it does interfere with your man-made doctrine. Simple as that.
The Barbarian
So are you saying the Biblical account of creation is a man made doctrine? I have not been following this eternal thread so perhaps I missed something
: The Barbarian Wed Oct 24, 2018 - 10:19:20
However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood. You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth. Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen withina lifetime..
I think its time you shapen up your biology a little.
Giant Redwood is a proper name. In Latin that would be "Sequoiadendron giganteum"
Its like you have a baby and you name him "Big Johnny".
So even if the baby is 6 pounds and 50cm tall...he still is knows as "Big Johnny".
Redwood trees do not become Giant Redwoods, only those redwood trees which are Giant Redwoods will remain Giant Redwoods.
The other redwood trees, such as for example Sequoia sempervirens may grow very large, but they will never become Sequoiadendron giganteum.
Now, quite similar to baby "Big Johnny" who we can observe growing into maturity within a human lifespan, we can also observe a little Sequoiadendron giganteum grow into maturity within a human lifespan. Maturity starts at an approximate age of 15 years, well within the span of human observation.
Your self-invented terms "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" make absolutely no sense, moreover since you are unable to present a proper definition for the terms.
You attempt to borrow from the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" in a totally misguided attempt to draw similarities where they do not exist.
Micro Evolution means small adaptations within one species, whilst Macro Evolution points to significant changes in multiple species.
What you are trying to do is to take the total lifespan of one tree of one species and try to divide its life into two parts: namely the earlier part of its life (microgrowth) and the later part of its life (macrogrowth).
Its not even scientific, it has absolutely no similarities to micro/macro evolution, it limits itself to one individual compared to multiple species.
But it also again shows the totally arbitrarily use of terminology and made up definitions for which your posts are well known.
I am of course hinting to terminologies like "facts" which are not "facts", "observations" which are not "observations", "proof" which is not "proof", "evidence" which is not "evidence", "irrefutable" which can be "refuted", "miracles" which are not "miracles" and "belief" which is not "belief"...all because you say so.
The funny part of your Giant Redwood analogy however is that it does not serve your position whatsoever.
See, the Giant Redwood tree was a Giant Redwood 1000 years ago..and still is. Its seeds are Giant Redwood seeds from which new Giant Redwood trees grow.
In turn these new trees drop seeds from which Giant Redwood trees grow and so on.
Nothing changes. The Giant Redwood tree remains a Giant Redwood tree and if you stand in a Giant Redwood forest, you have more or less the longest living record that proves nothing changes even after thousands of generations, over thousands of years, over thousands of offspring.
And its all there: observable, measurable and conclusive.
Barbarian observes:
However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood. You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth. Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen within a lifetime..
I think its time you shapen up your biology a little.
Always looking to do that...
Giant Redwood is a proper name.
No, it's a common name.
And as you learned, they take many human lifetimes to grow to maturity.
Your self-invented terms "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" make absolutely no sense,...
Precisely the way creationist misuse of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" make absolutely no sense. I'm funning you a little about it.
Micro Evolution means small adaptations within one species,
Yep.
whilst Macro Evolution points to significant changes in multiple species.
Nope. It means the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.
Its not even scientific, it has absolutely no similarities to micro/macro evolution, it limits itself to one individual compared to multiple species.
Just noting that you're perfectly willing to accept indirect evidence for the growth of a seed to a mature giant redwood, but you're unwilling to accept the same sort of evidence for common descent. And it's clear why. Your new interpretation of Genesis won't let you accept those facts.
The funny part of your Giant Redwood analogy however is that it does not serve your position whatsoever.
See above. It quite nicely showed your logical blind spot when it came to the facts about common descent.
So are you saying the Biblical account of creation is a man made doctrine?
I'm saying the modern revision of Genesis by YE creationists is a man-made doctrine.
Since the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history, it's an error to try to make it so.
: The Barbarian Fri Oct 26, 2018 - 19:56:16
I'm saying the modern revision of Genesis by YE creationists is a man-made doctrine.
Since the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history, it's an error to try to make it so.
That "modern" revision happens to be something people believed for centuries past.
It is of course evolutionists who recently came with a "modern revision"
LOOK....
This has been nagging me for a while now.....
I am not firmly entrenched in the evolution end of things like many of you.... but....
Is there a possibility that all the changes in the homosapien species that range from everything LGBTQ-U ( u for undecided and my addition)
to all the truly weird food afflictions from Celiac... ( at epidemic proportions) and nut allergies .... ( at epidemic proportions) and lactose intolerance... ( at epidemic proportions) That stuff that was never heard much of 50 years ago.
Could these explsions of what we would call the not normal human experience actually be evolution in the works?
That would be DE-volution.
: Jaime Sat Oct 27, 2018 - 10:55:57
That would be DE-volution.
Correct. Which is exactly where all the evidence really points. The world, plant and animal life are all now inferior to God's original creation. It was all bigger, better, and lasted a lot longer than it does now.
: Amo Sat Oct 27, 2018 - 13:08:02
Correct. Which is exactly where all the evidence really points. The world, plant and animal life are all now inferior to God's original creation. It was all bigger, better, and lasted a lot longer than it does now.
[/quote
That is true.
The Barbarian Can you point out where scripture declares that the creation is not literal history?
That "modern" revision happens to be something people believed for centuries past.
Maybe someone did, but it was never the opinion of most Christians. Augustine, for example, showed how the text itself says that it's not a literal history.
Spurgeon, the great Baptist theologian, pointed out that scripture was consistent with an Earth millions of years old.
The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was old Earth creationism.
YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.
The Barbarian Can you point out where scripture declares that the creation is not literal history?
As Augustine pointed out, the mention of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, makes it very clear that it's not a literal history.
But it's not a salvation issue. Most denominations quite properly make no doctrinal claims one way or the other.
: The Barbarian Sat Oct 27, 2018 - 21:25:34
Maybe someone did, but it was never the opinion of most Christians. Augustine, for example, showed how the text itself says that it's not a literal history.
Spurgeon, the great Baptist theologian, pointed out that scripture was consistent with an Earth millions of years old.
The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was old Earth creationism.
YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.
You say "it was never the opinion of
most Christians" and then you proceed to mention 2
What a sad state we are in if the majority is 2 people.
Anyway, both Augustine and Spurgeon are bad examples for you.
Augustine actually argued that the whole of creation was done at once and at the same time.
And if you wish Augustine to be your guideline of truth, do you agree with him that man was created directly by God and that woman was made from a rib of man?
Same goes for Spurgeon, he did not necessarily reject the idea on an old earth, but he would whoop your ass for all the other claims you make.
Sure you want him on your side?
So if both Augustine and Spurgeon represent "most" Christians...can we conclude your theories are the new kid on the block and a laughing stock to Christians of the first 19 centuries?
YE is not at all a modern revision, it has existed from as long as we are able to go back in history.
Which by the way is far longer than you can go back with regards to evolution.
(Barbarian notes that a literal Genesis was never the opinion of most Christians)
You say "it was never the opinion of most Christians" and then you proceed to mention 2
Augustine was the most influential Christian in his time. He is still honored as a major theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.
Spurgeon is perhaps the greatest Baptist theologian.
And as you know, I pointed out that OE creationism was the dominant creationist doctrine at the time of the Scopes trial.
Anyway, both Augustine and Spurgeon are bad examples for you.
Augustine actually argued that the whole of creation was done at once and at the same time.
He said the initial creation was instantaneous, from which everything else developed. Pretty good theology, I think.
And if you wish Augustine to be your guideline of truth, do you agree with him that man was created directly by God
Augustine notes that man's soul was created directly by God. Which is true. Augustine also understood that Adam was a real person. However, I'm looking for a place wherein Augustine said man's body was directly created by God. The Bible says it came from the earth like other animals, and only says that our soul was directly given by God.
Same goes for Spurgeon, he did not necessarily reject the idea on an old earth, but he would whoop your ass for all the other claims you make.
He surely wouldn't be considered an orthodox apostolic Christian, but he was a Christian, and he did realize that a young earth was inconsistent with Scripture.
Sure you want him on your side?
When he's right, he's right.
So if both Augustine and Spurgeon represent "most" Christians...
As you know, a young earth and a literal Genesis have never been Christian orthodoxy. There have always been those who thought these were right, but such ideas were never church doctrine.
can we conclude your theories are the new kid on the block and a laughing stock to Christians of the first 19 centuries?
See above. As you know, YE creationism is a modern invention, no older than the 20th century. It was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists, and spread to other sects by Price.
Quote As Augustine pointed out, the mention of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, makes it very clear that it's not a literal history.
But it's not a salvation issue. Most denominations quite properly make no doctrinal claims one way or the other.
So I guess when Jesus spoke in the future and said at the last supper take and drink this is my blood which is poured out and take eat this bread id my body which is broken for you then the crucifixion is not literal because He had not been put on a cross or had any injuries yet? Your explanation of God speaking of what He was putting into place makes little sense. You believe in a God that tells us lies, That is not the God I believe in or the God of the bible.
God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed. If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.
: Johnb Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 07:05:46
God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed. If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.
That's a very obtuse conclusion John, no one is claiming that all biblical verses should be taken metaphorically but some chapters and verses are designed to be left up to man to figure out and compare with our findings, Genesis 1 is a perfect example of where the creation account works perfectly with scientific theories, however the reverse is not true.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in this very long thread, the Bible contains verses that are not literal but they never seem to be an obstacle when YEC are discussing the literal intent of the creation account.
It was not mentioned by Barbarian that the view that man evolved from a "retarded monkey-fish-frog" was not held by Spurgeon.
: Johnb Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 07:05:46If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.
That is terribly naive and unfair. Scripture clearly says it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night (Eccl 1:5) and that the earth is stationary and does not move (1 Chron 16:30). Do you believe in the God of Scripture? Or is there a non-literal meaning associated with those verses? Does the earth really rotate once every day and revolve around the sun once every year? If so, prove it from Scripture; prove from Scripture that the earth is not stationary that it actually does move; prove from Scripture that both Ecclesiastes 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 are wrong.
: 4WD Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 08:13:53
Quote from: Johnb on Today at 07:05:46
If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.
That is terribly naive and unfair. Scripture clearly says it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night (Eccl 1:5) and that the earth is stationary and does not move (1 Chron 16:30). Do you believe in the God of Scripture? Or is there a non-literal meaning associated with those verses? Does the earth really rotate once every day and revolve around the sun once every year? If so, prove it from Scripture; prove from Scripture that the earth is not stationary that it actually does move; prove from Scripture that both Ecclesiastes 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 are wrong.
I have to agree with Johnb there. Besides, can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that? God, in everything He does is with purpose, don't you agree?
Regarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night nor does it say the opposite. What it says is from the writer's experience of things and perspective. And we can all relate to that, don't we? From where we are, our perspective and experience of the sun is the same as Eccl. 1:5 tells us.
I agree, let's introduce the writers perspective to this discussion.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 10:05:14Besides, can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that?
God's purpose in doing what?
: MichaelRegarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night
Yeah, that is what it says:
Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises. So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises. I don't know how you could read it any other way. But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.
: Alan Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 10:20:31I agree, let's introduce the writers perspective to this discussion.
That would most certainly be the rabbit that runs into the woods and wanders around there forever. ::smile::
: 4WD Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 10:22:35
God's purpose in doing what?
I was coming from what Johnb said, remember? That "If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture."
So, as scientists wanted us to believe, that God made man from an initial creation (which is another question to ask what is that), say a one cell creature. That God have it evolve for millions of years to become man. If you agree that God in everything He does, is with purpose, I ask the question "can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that?"
: 4WD Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 10:22:35
Quote from: Michael
Regarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night nor does it say the opposite. What it says is from the writer's experience of things and perspective. And we can all relate to that, don't we? From where we are, our perspective and experience of the sun is the same as Eccl. 1:5 tells us.
Yeah, that is what it says: Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises. So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises. I don't know how you could read it any other way. But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 12:25:54That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
So prove from Scripture that is precisely what happens; that is that the writer of Ecclesiastes explained it as it actually happens. Prove from Scripture that it is the rotation of the earth that produces just the
appearance of the sun moving across the sky.
You might get together with AVZ on this. Perhaps he could help you nail down the truth from Scripture. Although I rather doubt that he will be of much help on this one. He probably thinks the sun does actually revolve around the earth. He certainly wouldn't believe that such a description could be anything other than a literal presentation of the actual process.
Alan
Barbarian claims that scripture does not give an accurate description of how God created both the universe and man. We did not evolve from something that was an animal or less than man. God created man in His image He did not create some lower form of life and wait for millions of years for it to become man. Yes I believe to take that position is denying both scripture and God. He is all powerful and has no need to wait for evolution to work to finally make His creation. That is my view and do not care if one agrees or if it offends. God created live and gave it the ability to adapt within limits that He set.
: 4WD Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 16:00:13
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 12:25:54
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
So prove from Scripture that is precisely what happens; that is that the writer of Ecclesiastes explained it as it actually happens. Prove from Scripture that it is the rotation of the earth that produces just the appearance of the sun moving across the sky.
You might get together with AVZ on this. Perhaps he could help you nail down the truth from Scripture. Although I rather doubt that he will be of much help on this one. He probably thinks the sun does actually revolve around the earth. He certainly wouldn't believe that such a description could be anything other than a literal presentation of the actual process.
I have nothing to prove sir. As I said what the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote is not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that, to be the truth, as you know it now. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Now, if that is not the case for you, or that you see the opposite of that, I could understand that it will be a problem in your case.
So I guess when Jesus spoke in the future and said at the last supper take and drink this is my blood which is poured out and take eat this bread id my body which is broken for you then the crucifixion is not literal because He had not been put on a cross or had any injuries yet?
I really don't know what led you to that conclusion.
Your explanation of God speaking of what He was putting into place makes little sense.
It's consistent with His word in Genesis. Which is enough for me.
You believe in a God that tells us lies
So you think when Jesus told parables, those were lies? No, that doesn't make sense.
That is not the God I believe in or the God of the bible.
No, it isn't. And no one here believes that. So let's not be doing this kind of thing.
God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed. If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.
I understand you believe that. But it's not something scripture says. As I said, it's not a salvation issue. and we should not try to make it so.
Barbarian claims that scripture does not give an accurate description of how God created both the universe and man.
I just pointed out that it is an accurate description. It's not an accurate description of YE creationism, but that's another thing, entirely.
We did not evolve from something that was an animal or less than man.
We are animals, of course. And the evidence shows we evolved from other primates.
God created man in His image
Since God is a spirit, the "image" is not in a body; God dosen't have elbows or ears. It is, as God says, in our souls and minds.
He did not create some lower form of life and wait for millions of years for it to become man.
God is eternal. There is no "wait" for Him.
Yes I believe to take that position is denying both scripture and God.
It is denying some men's personal interpretation of scripture, which is an entirely different thing.
He is all powerful and has no need to wait for evolution to work to finally make His creation.
I think it's mistake to argue that if God can do something, then he has done it.
That is my view and do not care if one agrees or if it offends.
Well, of course I don't agree, but I'm not offended. You aren't going to hell for being a creationist, nor will you sin, unless you try to separate people from God for having a different opinion than you on this matter. You're still a Christian, as much as anyone else is, YE or not.
God created live and gave it the ability to adapt within limits that He set.
That's what Darwin said. The major difference you have with it, is how wide those limits are.
It was not mentioned by Barbarian that the view that man evolved from a "retarded monkey-fish-frog" was not held by Spurgeon.
If so, he was in agreement with Darwin on that, too.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 23, 2018 - 20:15:45
Quote
In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
The only difference is, you don't approve of the way he did it.
I think no Christian disapproves that, for it is scriptures.
We differ in that, you take that to be by science's theory of the evolution of man. A product of man's wisdom. On the other hand, I take it simply as it was told by God in scriptures. There is where we differ.
By the way, how do you take scriptures that says Eve was created by God by taking from Adam's rib and out of it made Eve? That would imply that Eve was created only after the evolution of Adam, does it not? When do you think was that, when man begun to have a mate, the female. And does that not mean that Eve did not evolve, or did she?
What is your theory on that, if you have one? I'm excited to hear it.
Barbarian,
I have some questions for you for which I wish to know your answers.
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?
Here's a couple of questions (silly as they may get) related to the ages of different things:
4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
: Michael2012 Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 00:59:40
Barbarian,
I have some questions for you for which I wish to know your answers.
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?
Here's a couple of questions (silly as they may get) related to the ages of different things:
4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
Michael,
Barbarian believes that man evolved from apes.
Once the ape was evolved sufficiently, God gave it a soul and it became a human being.
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 22:00:43
As I said, it's not a salvation issue. and we should not try to make it so.
Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
I know homosexuals who claim God's statement about homosexuality is to be taken allegorical and its not a matter of salvation.
Barbarian one last thing then I will go the thread has gone on way to long. Believing in the scriptural account of creation does not mean I am a proponent of the young earth theory.
The reason I used the example of Jesus speaking of His blood being poured out and body broken in the present tense even though it had not happen is no different than God speaking of day and night before they existed.
Yes not everything is scripture is literal. However, trying to compare parables to the creation is apples and oranges. Jesus clearly labels them and explains them to His apostles. bye
: The Barbarian Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 22:10:28
If so, he was in agreement with Darwin on that, too.
No. Spurgeon believed man was created directly by God. Not evolved from a primate.
You are very good and parsing words and meanings to back up your false beliefs.
Here are some quotes from Spurgeon regarding evolution and man evolving rather than being created:
"If God's word be true, evolution is a lie."
"The age is getting worse and worse, and man, by a process of evolution, is evolving a devil."
"Within fifty years children in the school will read of extraordinary popular delusions, and this will be mentioned as one of the most absurd of them." The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon 'Hideous Discovery', preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:
'In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God's Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.'
Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal. Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts.
: Alan Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 07:47:53
Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal. Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts.
It isn't a
fact that we evolved from monkeys. I brought him up because Barbarian used him as a reference, and I was pointing out what Barbarian intentionally did not. While Spurgeon did not believe in YEC, he also did not believe that humans "evolved" from other creatures.
Also, today the philosophy that Jesus Christ is God and came down to earth as a human to die and resurrect from the grave in order to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind for all those who believe would
"be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge." Therefore, your assertion doesn't hold much water.
: Texas Conservative Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 07:59:35
It isn't a fact that we evolved from monkeys. I brought him up because Barbarian used him as a reference, and I was pointing out what Barbarian intentionally did not. While Spurgeon did not believe in YEC, he also did not believe that humans "evolved" from other creatures.
Also, today the philosophy that Jesus Christ is God and came down to earth as a human to die and resurrect from the grave in order to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind for all those who believe would "be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge." Therefore, your assertion doesn't hold much water.
The reason I say that Spurgeon's thoughts would be considered antiquated by today's measure is simply because he believed that all of these various creatures in their relative era's existed over the course of millions of years, his theology doesn't point to where scripture supports species becoming extinct and replaced with new species, in an non-evolutionary fashion that is.
I say Spurgeon was just a man, I do not claim the same for Jesus Christ.
: Alan Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 08:09:57
The reason I say that Spurgeon's thoughts would be considered antiquated by today's measure is simply because he believed that all of these various creatures in their relative era's existed over the course of millions of years, his theology doesn't point to where scripture supports species becoming extinct and replaced with new species, in an non-evolutionary fashion that is.
I say Spurgeon was just a man, I do not claim the same for Jesus Christ.
Spurgeon would be considered a great theologian, whose work and writings have always been and still are directed to Gods glory.
Darwin on the other hand, whose works and writings are in fact considered antiquated by today's measure, has done exactly the opposite and established the framework on which many have abandoned faith and put Gods Word out with the trash.
I say Spurgeon was just a man in service of Gods Kingdom, and I say Darwin was just a man in service of the adversary.
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.
2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
Of course.
3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?
As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo. Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.
4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it. Why do you ask?
5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself. A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.
Spurgeon would be considered a great theologian, whose work and writings have always been and still are directed to Gods glory.
Even though he agreed with Darwin that a creator made the Earth many millions of years ago?
Darwin on the other hand, whose works and writings are in fact considered antiquated by today's measure
Which of the five basic points of Darwnian theory have been "antiquated?" As you should know, they are all still validated by observation.
has done exactly the opposite and established the framework on which many have abandoned faith and put Gods Word out with the trash.
You have that backwards. I have seen many young people, raised in the modern belief of YE creationism, lose their faith as a result of it. Here's the testimony of Glenn Morton, a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research's graduate school:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
As you know, Darwin asserted that God created life on Earth.
I say Spurgeon was just a man in service of Gods Kingdom, and I say Darwin was just a man in service of the adversary.
I never thought of God as an adversary.
Barbarian one last thing then I will go the thread has gone on way to long. Believing in the scriptural account of creation does not mean I am a proponent of the young earth theory.
Indeed, believing Genesis as it is, would require you to not be a proponent of YE creationism. However, you are right if you are saying that there are some forms of OE creationism that are not inconsistent with Genesis.
: AVZ Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 03:10:01
Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
I know homosexuals who claim God's statement about homosexuality is to be taken allegorical and its not a matter of salvation.
Pretty simple discussion when you're dealing with "sin" or "interpretation". Do I risk sinning due to my belief?
Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
That's demonstrably untrue. YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation.
However, Jesus clearly tells us in Matthew, what is necessary for salvation, and one's opinion of they way He did creation is not part of it. To insist that it is, is adding one's own desires to scripture.
Just like God the Bible never makes mistakes or is just a book. It is the Daily Word and Scripture of God the Author. It applies back in the past, here in the present, and for future generations.
: Alan Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:32:23
Do I risk sinning due to my belief?
You could be if you believe the wrong thing.
False beliefs and false interpretation most definitely can lead to sin.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 20:14:12
YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation.
As a matter of preference, I prefer people who say their message is a matter of salvation over people who say their opinion doesn't matter.
If you debate with such a YE Creationist, you would know where you stand and where they stand.
People who claim "You can safely believe my theories and you can safely drop what scripture says, because its not a matter of salvation" are of the dangerous kind.
Satan will always say his views are not a matter of salvation.
Everybody who defies scripture and claims he is a Christian will say his opinion is not a matter of salvation.
Barbarian notes the obvious counterexample:
Many YE creationists, for example say that their opinion is a matter of salvation. Many, not all. Perhaps not even a majority. I know many YE creationists who openly acknowledge that one's salvation does not depend on one's view of evolution.
As a matter of preference, I prefer people who say their message is a matter of salvation over people who say their opinion doesn't matter.
God doesn't want men adding new requirements. Best to leave that to God.
If you debate with such a YE Creationist, you would know where you stand and where they stand.
Actually, there's far more variation in belief among YE creationists than there is among traditional Bible-believing Christians.
People who claim "You can safely believe my theories and you can safely drop what scripture says, because its not a matter of salvation"
Don't exist, except as stories YE creationists make up. As you know, traditional Bible believing Christians recognize that scripture is consistent with evolution, but that Jesus never made an opinion on the subject a requirement to be saved. People of either side who say it is, are doing Christianity grave damage.
Satan will always say his views are not a matter of salvation.
You shouldn't care about what Satan tells you.
: AVZ Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 21:36:01
You could be if you believe the wrong thing.
False beliefs and false interpretation most definitely can lead to sin.
With that you've encompassed every person that reads and adheres to biblical doctrine. Obviously some things are pretty cut and dry but others are certainly debatable and are addressed in Romans 14.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:03:46
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.
Are you not a Christian? But you say you are and so you believe that God created out of nothing.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:03:46
2. Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
Of course.
So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse? And so, is that creation by evolution or what?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:03:46
3. Would you say that you were created by God so that now you exist, from out of nothing?
As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo. Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.
You speak of life here as something produced. I could sense that we don't share the same understanding of 'life'.
You speak of the soul. Are you speaking about it scientifically or what?
As a scientists, I'm sure you are some expert in dating things. When would you say was the first human being came into being, having been created as having sufficiently evolved into a human, perhaps Adam? And in relation to that, would you not be saying that it was the same time that God created the first human soul?
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:03:46
4. Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it. Why do you ask?
Just wondering what your answer is. For it seems to me that scientists seems to put each thing that exist to have different age determined by scientific calculations invented by scientists. As for a man, they take the age to be reckoned from his time of birth. I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be.
Scientists, who don't believe in the creation of something from out of nothing, are the obvious ones who can't and won't believe that earth nor man was created other than by evolution. To them, they theorize that everything came to be, not from nothing, but from something, whatever that may be to them. Even while they don't know what that original something is, they hold on to that. They have faith in themselves that they will, by science, will come to discover what that is within some predicted near future.
But, in all of this, what I can say is that, the most intelligent of man knows and can know, if at all, only so little of any truth, even a shadow of the truth, about the what, why and how's of the creation of the infinitely wise and intelligent God.
: The Barbarian Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 17:03:46
5. Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself. A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.
You speak of 'accretion'. Accretion of what to what? When was the initial accretion that you are referring to? And you say "
after the initial accretion". When did the accretion you are saying ended?
Granting, for the sake of argument, that the earth was formed by evolution, when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"? And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 08:40:41
So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse? And so, is that creation by evolution or what?
Procreation is not creation ex nihilo, i.e., from nothing.
: Alan Tue Oct 30, 2018 - 07:47:53
Spurgeon was just a man. Whether he realized his statements would become viewed as foolish in latter years is unknown but I would accept that in his time, such ambiguities were fully accepted without rebuttal. Today his philosophy should be considered antiquated due primarily to the progress of man and his quest for knowledge. No tricks, no deception, no "anti's", just a presentation of the modern day facts.
With that, I suppose you find man, particularly the scientists, as true, righteous, and trustworthy, in that regard. Such faith, I could see you have in them.
But I want to take you back to Genesis.
Gen. 3:6 So when the woman
saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the
eyes, and a tree
desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate..
Be careful on what is being presented to you, especially those that pleases you through your eyes, of things that gives rise to desiring them as that will make you wise. For that is welcoming deception. We ought to learn from scriptures and be wise, that we may not be deceived and sin, as was in the beginning with Eve.
: 4WD Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 08:43:38
Procreation is not creation ex nihilo, i.e., from nothing.
Perhaps you can say that, if you are referring to the flesh. But your flesh is not the man you are.
What do you believe about Jesus? Was Jesus created or not?
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
Barbarian explains:
If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so. Are you not a Christian? But you say you are and so you believe that God created out of nothing.
Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
Barbarian observes:
Of course.
So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse?
Not merely by natural means. God only produces the bodies of living things using nature. Our souls did not evolve, but are given immediately by God, and exist before our bodies do. Consult scripture for the details. Hint:
Jerermiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you
And so, is that creation by evolution or what?
As you now see, only your body. You have a body. You are an immortal soul.
Barbarian explains further:
As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo. Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.
You speak of life here as something produced.
According to God, yes. Brought forth by the earth, waters, and air.
I could sense that we don't share the same understanding of 'life'.
Perhaps not. Try reading Genesis.
You speak of the soul. Are you speaking about it scientifically or what?
One can't speak scientifically of the supernatural. Science only applies to the physical universe.
As a scientists, I'm sure you are some expert in dating things. When would you say was the first human being came into being, having been created as having sufficiently evolved into a human, perhaps Adam? And in relation to that, would you not be saying that it was the same time that God created the first human soul?
According to Him, souls pre-exist our bodies. See Jerimiah 1:5.
Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it. Why do you ask?
Just wondering what your answer is. For it seems to me that scientists seems to put each thing that exist to have different age determined by scientific calculations invented by scientists. As for a man, they take the age to be reckoned from his time of birth. I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be.
All cells in your body are from a single cell. Thought you knew.
Scientists, who don't believe in the creation of something from out of nothing,
What makes you think that? How odd.
are the obvious ones who can't and won't believe that earth nor man was created other than by evolution. To them, they theorize that everything came to be, not from nothing, but from something, whatever that may be to them.
Well, the ones who are Christians, Jews, or Muslims think it came from God. Probably a lot of the others do too. You seem to not know any scientists.
Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
Barbarian observes:
Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself. A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.
Accretion of what to what?
Dust and gases from a collapsing cloud. Would you like to learn how we know that?
When was the initial accretion that you are referring to?
After a nearby supergiant went supernova. Would you like to learn how we know that?
And you say "after the initial accretion". When did the accretion you are saying ended?
Sometime after the moon formed, it seems. Because there is very little erosion on the moon, the scars of that accretion remain there.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that the earth was formed by evolution
It wasn't. What an odd misconception!
when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"?
You're a bit confused. Populations of living things evolve. Perhaps you'd be less confused if you used Darwn's term: "descent with modification." Let's do that so you don't get mixed up in the discussion.
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
Why is that a concern? Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
Science can't support your faith for you. If faith isn't enough, you're pretty much out of luck.
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 09:31:22
Perhaps you can say that, if you are referring to the flesh. But your flesh is not the man you are.
What do you believe about Jesus? Was Jesus created or not?
The flesh is the only part of man that came by way of sexual intercourse. The spirit was formed in man by God Himself having nothing at all to do with procreation.
And no, Jesus was not created in any sense, flesh or spirit.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
1. Do you believe that God, in the very beginning, before there was nothing yet created, that He created out of nothing?
Barbarian explains:
If you're a Christian, you believe the Nicene Creed, which says so.
Are you not a Christian? But you say you are and so you believe that God created out of nothing.
Do you believe that you were created by God? That before you were created into being, that you were nothing and does not exist?
Barbarian observes:
Of course.
So, would you say you were created from being nothing to exist to being a human, though by and through the natural means of sexual intercourse?
Not merely by natural means. God only produces the bodies of living things using nature. Our souls did not evolve, but are given immediately by God, and exist before our bodies do. Consult scripture for the details. Hint:
Jerermiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you
It's good that you believe that souls did not evolve.
But the soul pre-existing? What you have in Jer. 1:5 does not teach anything close to that. Besides, that only concerns Jeremiah, not mankind.
In that passage, God identified Himself to be sovereign over Jeremiah. One is that He foreknew him before he was born, second is God had caused him to be born, and third is that God had separated him for a holy service. To conclude from that that the soul of man pre-exist the man, is clearly going beyond what is written and taking the verse to say what it does not.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
And so, is that creation by evolution or what?
As you now see, only your body. You have a body. You are an immortal soul.
So you believe your body was created by evolution. On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb through the natural process of conception which involved my mother and father. If from a sperm cell to growing into a baby and born to grow into an adult is evolution, perhaps I could agree. But that to me isn't evolution, but simply growing unto physical maturity. It's like a seed growing into a tree.
I can see here that you believe that the soul is immortal. May I know the scriptures that supports this?
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
Barbarian explains further:
As God says, life was produced from previously created things, not de novo. Our souls are given immediately by God, but our bodies were formed naturally.
You speak of life here as something produced.
According to God, yes. Brought forth by the earth, waters, and air.
I could sense that we don't share the same understanding of 'life'.
Perhaps not. Try reading Genesis.
Perhaps, it is the scientist who needs to read Genesis and the rest of scriptures concerning life. For they have a different definition of what life is. Besides, you have already confined life in science to refer only to the physical.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Saying that according to God, life was produced from something, from previously created things is a deceptive lie. For life isn't produced but is given directly by God to a lifeless creature created from out of a previously created thing. It is only then that one becomes to be with life.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
You speak of the soul. Are you speaking about it scientifically or what?
One can't speak scientifically of the supernatural. Science only applies to the physical universe.
As a scientist, I'm sure you are some expert in dating things. When would you say was the first human being came into being, having been created as having sufficiently evolved into a human, perhaps Adam? And in relation to that, would you not be saying that it was the same time that God created the first human soul?
According to Him, souls pre-exist our bodies. See Jerimiah 1:5.
I'd guess you'll say that. And so, as a scientist you only speak there of life with its scientific meaning. But you claim to be a Christian, isn't it? And yet, it seems to me that you take life in its scientific meaning only. Which makes the difference in this discussion.
With regards your (not according to God) contention that souls pre-exist our bodies, that is a mistake, a deceptive lie, even using Jer. 1:5. As I have already pointed out to you in my previous post, Jer. 1:5 does not teach anything close to that. See reply #2730.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
Do all your body parts, like teeth, hair, skin, nails, heart, lungs, etc., each have the same age as the whole man taken as the man "Barbarian"?
Wasn't aware that anyone doubted it. Why do you ask?
Just wondering what your answer is. For it seems to me that scientists seems to put each thing that exist to have different age determined by scientific calculations invented by scientists. As for a man, they take the age to be reckoned from his time of birth. I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be.
All cells in your body are from a single cell. Thought you knew.
That's what you scientists say you've discovered by science.
But then going back to my point, I wonder if any scientist ever thought of dating each part of the man and see if it is consistent with his age, as we commonly take it to be. It would be a piece of cake for scientists like you to do that.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
Scientists, who don't believe in the creation of something from out of nothing,
What makes you think that? How odd.
Why should that be odd, when all I did after the comma, is qualify the scientist I was about to talk about? You misunderstood. For you know very well that I know you as a scientist who does not fall by such qualification. I'm referring to those who don't believe in God who created everything.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
are the obvious ones who can't and won't believe that earth nor man was created other than by evolution. To them, they theorize that everything came to be, not from nothing, but from something, whatever that may be to them.
Well, the ones who are Christians, Jews, or Muslims think it came from God. Probably a lot of the others do too. You seem to not know any scientists.
Firstly, see my comment above.
And you, a Christian scientist, while saying that you believe that God created them, insist that it is by the theory of evolution that the scientists (including those who aren't Christians, Jews or Muslims) came up with, when God evidently had not revealed how He created, except that which is written in Genesis. Obviously it was kept secret from man. One of the reasons perhaps is that man can't handle such things, and only will do them harm than good.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
Do all that make up the earth each have the same age as the whole earth taken as the "earth"?
Barbarian observes:
Almost all the matter on the Earth is as old as the Earth itself. A tiny amount came in from meteorites after the initial accretion.
Accretion of what to what?
Dust and gases from a collapsing cloud. Would you like to learn how we know that?
So, you speak of accretion of dust and gases. And that FROM a collapsing cloud ( I wonder how that cloud existed). But then, you didn't say accretion to what? Not to an existing earth I'm sure. For I suppose these dust and gases you talk about are what scientists hypothesized to have accumulated to form the earth. And according to that ,this formation took a very long time until the earth was formed. So, they have now made up a story, according to their scientific minds, of how the earth came to existence. And to which you say of this primordial earth, that all that makes it up is of the same age? But what is clear is that, the earth, being that which was formed, does not have the same age as that of the different parts that accumulated to be what is as one, the primordial earth.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
When was the initial accretion that you are referring to?
After a nearby supergiant went supernova. Would you like to learn how we know that?
And apparently you don't know when was that. But of course, you can always guess and believe your guess to be correct or perhaps likely to be correct. Well, it's just a guess.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
And you say "after the initial accretion". When did the accretion you are saying ended?
Sometime after the moon formed, it seems. Because there is very little erosion on the moon, the scars of that accretion remain there.
As I have pointed out above, you could only guess. It may be to you, a reasonable guess among perhaps other thousand guesses, but it's still just a guess.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
Granting, for the sake of argument, that the earth was formed by evolution
It wasn't. What an odd misconception!
Very well, it is not by evolution. Accretion theory perhaps? Just the same, it's some theory that man came up with. Convinced in themselves, by their scientific work and minds, accepted it to be that which happened and how it happened. The bottom line is, it is a guess and that not one of them, including you, really knows for certain.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"?
You're a bit confused. Populations of living things evolve. Perhaps you'd be less confused if you used Darwn's term: "descent with modification." Let's do that so you don't get mixed up in the discussion.
You're right I am. Why wouldn't I?
No, I'd be less confused if I stick to God, in His words in scriptures, as they are revealed.
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 11:40:09
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
Why is that a concern? Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
Science can't support your faith for you. If faith isn't enough, you're pretty much out of luck.
Not really a concern, but more of an inquiry in relation to your concern of showing that God created man as spoken in Genesis, is by evolution. And since evolution deals with time, so I ask. So, what is the scientific calculation to that?
Being offended is not an issue in our discussion, as also science supporting my faith isn't an issue at all. You are the scientist, not me. Perhaps to you it is.
Jesus Christ is more than enough for me. He is everything to me. How about you?
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 14:21:44So you believe your body was created by evolution. On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb through the natural process of conception which involved my mother and father. If from a sperm cell to growing into a baby and born to grow into an adult is evolution, perhaps I could agree. But that to me isn't evolution, but simply growing unto physical maturity. It's like a seed growing into a tree.
This demonstrates that you really do not understand what creation is or means and that you haven't clue about what evolution is.
Creation by God is ex nihilo, from nothing. God didn't create you body. It grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. Neither the fertilization process nor the growth of the fertilized egg into a fully formed baby is evolution.
: 4WD Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 05:28:34
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 14:21:44
So you believe your body was created by evolution. On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb through the natural process of conception which involved my mother and father. If from a sperm cell to growing into a baby and born to grow into an adult is evolution, perhaps I could agree. But that to me isn't evolution, but simply growing unto physical maturity. It's like a seed growing into a tree.
This demonstrates that you really do not understand what creation is or means and that you haven't clue about what evolution is.
Creation by God is ex nihilo, from nothing. God didn't create you body. It grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. Neither the fertilization process nor the growth of the fertilized egg into a fully formed baby is evolution.
And you seem to think you really know and understand what creation is or means, all because you accept this scientific theory of the evolution of man? What I said in there is what I believe, not based on what scientists say, but what God says in scriptures.
Yes, you know this theory of the evolution of man, perhaps better than anyone else. But only as scientists say what it is. On the other hand, what I believe about the creation of man is as God tells me it is.
God creates in ways that you and I, nor anyone for that matter, that we can't know unless God reveals it. And that is not limited to creation by ex nihilo, for God is almighty and perfectly and infinitely wise. He can create anything out of nothing and out of anything.
You believe that God creates ex nihilo, and I know that too. And we know that because scriptures tells us so. Now later, here comes some scientists and tell the world that man was created by their theory of evolution. And comes some like you, who take that as if it was really how God created man. But scriptures does not say any of that. What scriptures say is "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being". If that is not creation to you, nor is sufficient revelation to you about the creation of man, then it is not to you. On the other hand I take it as creation, as Genesis scriptures tells me so.
On how a man comes to exist, is known to man. The ancients know that. It starts with the husband and wife having sexual intercourse. But what happens next is beyond them. It could result to the conception of a child or not.
Now, going now to what you said, that neither the fertilization process nor the growth of the fertilized egg into a fully formed baby is evolution. And that's how I take that as well. Now, I want you to share this passage.
1 Cor. 3:6-7
6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but
only God, who makes things grow.
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 08:15:05
1 Cor. 3:6-7
6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
That passage is referring to Paul giving good guidance to Apollos, Apollos speaking it forward, but if it wasn't in tune with God's will it would not flourish.
Not sure how that relates to the discussion of creation, in fact it just doesn't.
: Alan Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 09:02:11
That passage is referring to Paul giving good guidance to Apollos, Apollos speaking it forward, but if it wasn't in tune with God's will it would not flourish.
Not sure how that relates to the discussion of creation, in fact it just doesn't.
Many on this thread continue to try to plant seeds of faith in God's word above faith in the faulty reasonings of fallen humanity. They are hoping that God will help make such grow within the evolutionists continually arguing against His word on this thread. We just hope and pray that one day you will have more faith in the testimony God has provided for humanity, than the vain speculations and theories of fallen humanity.
Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The false theory of evolution is based completely upon death, and leads to the same. The purpose of God's word is of an exact opposite nature. Choose life.
: Alan Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 09:02:11
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 08:15:05
1 Cor. 3:6-7
6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
That passage is referring to Paul giving good guidance to Apollos, Apollos speaking it forward, but if it wasn't in tune with God's will it would not flourish.
Not sure how that relates to the discussion of creation, in fact it just doesn't.
I was pointing out there the truth that while we see man perhaps as the one who does the work, as when he plants a seed and waters it, it is not man who makes it grow, but God. It relates to the creation of man, in that, while it is the husband and the wife who goes together in sexual intercourse, with the man planting his seed in the woman, neither of the two makes the seed grow into a man, but God.
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 10:15:34
That passage is referring to Paul giving good guidance to Apollos, Apollos speaking it forward, but if it wasn't in tune with God's will it would not flourish.
Not sure how that relates to the discussion of creation, in fact it just doesn't.
I was pointing out there the truth that while we see man perhaps as the one who does the work, as when he plants a seed and waters it, it is not man who makes it grow, but God. It relates to the creation of man, in that, while it is the husband and the wife who goes together in sexual intercourse, with the man planting his seed in the woman, neither of the two makes the seed grow into a man, but God.
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
You continue to demonstrate your nearly complete lack of understanding of just how magnificent is God's creation. What I said regarding creation above has nothing whatever to do with whether evolution is true or not.
: Amo Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 09:42:20Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
There are many of us here that believe that verse fits you to a tee.
: Amo Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 09:42:20Many on this thread continue to try to plant seeds of faith in God's word above faith in the faulty reasonings of fallen humanity.
I can only come to the conclusion with all your haranguing about faulty reasonings of fallen humanity that you think that your reasonings aren't those of fallen humanity. What a joke.
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 10:15:34
That passage is referring to Paul giving good guidance to Apollos, Apollos speaking it forward, but if it wasn't in tune with God's will it would not flourish.
Not sure how that relates to the discussion of creation, in fact it just doesn't.
I was pointing out there the truth that while we see man perhaps as the one who does the work, as when he plants a seed and waters it, it is not man who makes it grow, but God. It relates to the creation of man, in that, while it is the husband and the wife who goes together in sexual intercourse, with the man planting his seed in the woman, neither of the two makes the seed grow into a man, but God.
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
You're attempting to create a parallel for a verse but it just doesn't fit unless you don't grasp the meaning of the verse to begin with.
It has
nothing to do with
physical seeds that God must see to fruition.
: Michael2012 Mon Oct 29, 2018 - 12:25:54
: 4WDYeah, that is what it says: Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises. So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises. I don't know how you could read it any other way. But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.
[/size]
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
It is interesting that you bring up, in the writer's eye, I suggest if you are as willing to give the same latitude to the writer of Genesis, evolution becomes a little more plausible.
: 4WD Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 11:37:45
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:15:34
I was pointing out there the truth that while we see man perhaps as the one who does the work, as when he plants a seed and waters it, it is not man who makes it grow, but God. It relates to the creation of man, in that, while it is the husband and the wife who goes together in sexual intercourse, with the man planting his seed in the woman, neither of the two makes the seed grow into a man, but God.
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
You continue to demonstrate your nearly complete lack of understanding of just how magnificent is God's creation. What I said regarding creation above has nothing whatever to do with whether evolution is true or not.
And you continue to act as if you have complete understanding of God's creation, lacking nothing, yet have not demonstrated any of it here.
What you said regarding creation, perhaps have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. But why bring that up when I did not say anything about that? But yes, your saying it successfully deviates us from the subject of discussion. And admittedly, you are demonstrably good at that, consistent even.
This is where you should be commenting on:
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo.
: Carey Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 13:46:52
Quote from: 4WD
Yeah, that is what it says: Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. It certainly doesn't go down in the same place it rises. So then it must move from where it rises to where it goes down and then goes back to where it rises. I don't know how you could read it any other way. But then that is not literal presentation of what actually happens any more than Genesis 1-3 is a literal presentation of what actually happened.
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
It is interesting that you bring up, in the writer's eye, I suggest if you are as willing to give the same latitude to the writer of Genesis, evolution becomes a little more plausible.
I have done that sir. But do you think that what the theory of evolution says today is caught by the writer's eye, so that what he says in Genesis regarding the creation of God even hints of evolution as described by scientists today? Such events spoken of in the theory of evolution obviously are beyond the writer's eye, unlike that in the case of Ecclesiastes, which is not only seen and experienced by him, but even all of man.
: Alan Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 12:31:42
You're attempting to create a parallel for a verse but it just doesn't fit unless you don't grasp the meaning of the verse to begin with.
It has nothing to do with physical seeds that God must see to fruition.
There is no such attempt sir.
Consider this verse for example:
1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because
God is love.
If in a certain discussion say on the incarnation, we would want to point out that God is love, do we err in using that verse to show that God is love because the verse's context is not about incarnation?
In the present case, I cited 1 Cor. 3:6-7, to point out that it is God who makes things grow. Unless you object to it, that it is God who makes things grow, not only of that which is inline with the context, but even of other things such as the growth of seeds into trees or the human seed into a man.
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 20:25:11
You continue to demonstrate your nearly complete lack of understanding of just how magnificent is God's creation. What I said regarding creation above has nothing whatever to do with whether evolution is true or not.
And you continue to act as if you have complete understanding of God's creation, lacking nothing, yet have not demonstrated any of it here.
What you said regarding creation, perhaps have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. But why bring that up when I did not say anything about that? But yes, your saying it successfully deviates us from the subject of discussion. And admittedly, you are demonstrably good at that, consistent even.
This is where you should be commenting on:
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo.
If you take that "to create" means "create ex nihilo" than you have to look for the smallest non-dividable element in an object.
Water for example then was not created. Only the elements Oxygen and Hydrogen.
Trees, plants, earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, animals, humans...none of these were created because all of these are a collection of smaller elements which must have pre-dated the collection.
We can now significantly shorten the first chapter of Genesis.
In the beginning God created the elements.
And God saw that the elements were good, and God rested.
: 4WD Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 11:40:39
There are many of us here that believe that verse fits you to a tee.
Of course it does. I believe the following testimony to be the simple truth. Who can deny of course that the following testimony is simply the faulty reasonings of fallen humanity?
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.
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Please do correct the above faulty reasoning of the above testimony for us 4WD. Which parts exactly are the faulty ones, or is all of it altogether faulty? Thank you.
: 4WD Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 11:43:40
I can only come to the conclusion with all your haranguing about faulty reasonings of fallen humanity that you think that your reasonings aren't those of fallen humanity. What a joke.
I agree with Moses. Please do explain how his testimony is faulty reasoning, and why he is a joke for stating such.
: AVZ Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 21:21:52
If you take that "to create" means "create ex nihilo" than you have to look for the smallest non-dividable element in an object.
Water for example then was not created. Only the elements Oxygen and Hydrogen.
Trees, plants, earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, animals, humans...none of these were created because all of these are a collection of smaller elements which must have pre-dated the collection.
We can now significantly shorten the first chapter of Genesis.
In the beginning God created the elements.
And God saw that the elements were good, and God rested.
And I wonder why the concerned does not lift a finger to address my post, and now this as well.
But I'd say that such does not call for a shortening of Genesis 1. Only that, Genesis 1 must be taken not beyond what it says and reveals about the creation work of God. The more that one goes beyond that, no matter how good the intention and purpose is, only gets him farther away from the truth, the truth, which in its form and content, is all that man need to know.
Let me illustrate a bit.
Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This plainly tells us that it is God who created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Must we go into how He did it and when He did it, when all He wanted for us to know by that verse is simply that?
If we come to think of it, why God had only purposely revealed so much, that could only be nothing but for the good of man and according to His infinite wisdom.
: Carey Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 13:46:52
[/size]
That's a literal presentation sir. Yet not of what is according to what scientists tells us today about that. Rather, it's a literal presentation sir of what happens, in the writer's eye, as much as it is to anyone who see and experience the sun, as it is even to the eyes of today's scientists. Day after day, this is the experience, the sun rising and going down.
It is interesting that you bring up, in the writer's eye, I suggest if you are as willing to give the same latitude to the writer of Genesis, evolution becomes a little more plausible.
Was Genesis written from the writer's eye?
: Amo Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 22:27:30I agree with Moses.
And I agree with what God had Moses write.
: AmoPlease do explain how his testimony is faulty reasoning
His testimony is not faulty reasoning. His is not reasoning at all; his is simply writing as God directed. The reasoning lies with you. You regularly attribute faulty reasoning to fallen humanity and since you are one of the fallen humanity, you by your own charge engage in faulty reasoning.
: Amo ....and why he is a joke for stating such.
The joke is not in what Moses wrote; he wrote as God directed. The joke is always in the interpretation. It is, or should be, evident that what God directed Moses to write about creation in Genesis was not to be taken as a literal account of God's work of creation.
: AVZ Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 05:17:03Was Genesis written from the writer's eye?
It was certainly written with the writer's eye in view. It was written such that the writer would receive the message God intended, namely, that God was the creator.
: AVZ Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 21:21:52In the beginning God created the elements.
And God saw that the elements were good, and God rested.
In fact, God didn't even create the elements. The elements are the result of physical processes which God established at the very outset of creation. The first such elements were Hydrogen, Helium, and a few of the very light elements. Heavier elements are formed by Nucleosynthesis in the stars. That is still going on. See https://physics.info/nucleosynthesis/
If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that it says that God created in only three specific actions. (1) the "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1), which many Hebrew scholars take as a figure of speech meaning all the "stuff" from which everything else comes. (1) life in the sea (Gen 1:20-21) and (2) the spirit of man (Gen 1:27; 2:7). But I suspect that is not something you can come to grips with.
: 4WD Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 06:01:49
If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that it says that God created in only three specific actions. (1) the "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1), which many Hebrew scholars take as a figure of speech meaning all the "stuff" from which everything else comes. (1) life in the sea (Gen 1:20-21) and (2) the spirit of man (Gen 1:27; 2:7). But I suspect that is not something you can come to grips with.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created "the heavens and the earth".
Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
And you are actually saying that the very first verse of scriptures is a figure of speech. How about the next verse?
Your take of "the heavens and the earth" as figure of speech, means that God did not create the literal earth and the heavens as well. Do you not realize what that means?
And I could understand why you say that.
Perhaps you can tell us what these "stuff" are.
I suspect that you will pass on this one.
: Michael2012 Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 08:36:30
Perhaps you can tell us what these "stuff" are.
I suspect that you will pass on this one.
Essentially extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy which condensed upon cooling to form the fundamental particles from which make up the entire matter of the universe.
So you believe your body was created by evolution.
Actually, the species H. sapiens was created by evolution.
On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb
I'm pretty sure my body wasn't formed in your mother's womb. Truthfully, I don't remember the event, but I have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
I can see here that you believe that the soul is immortal. May I know the scriptures that supports this?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
Daniel 12:2 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt
Very well, it is not by evolution. Accretion theory perhaps? Just the same, it's some theory that man came up with.
You've confused "theory" and "hypothesis." When scientists come up with a possible explanation, it's a hypothesis. After a hypothesis has been repeatedly verified by evidence, it's a theory. Would you like to know how we can be sure enough about it to qualify as a settled theory?
Convinced in themselves, by their scientific work and minds
Evidence. Every hypothesis makes testable claims. If those claims, when tested, are repeatedly shown to be correct, then and only then can it be considered a theory.
accepted it to be that which happened and how it happened. The bottom line is, it is a guess
You're confusing "hypothesis" and "theory" again.
and that not one of them, including you, really knows for certain.
We don't know for certain that the Sun will appear in the east, tomorrow morning. But we have enough evidence that denying it is foolish. Theories are like that.
when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"?
Barbarian observes:
You're a bit confused. Populations of living things evolve. Perhaps you'd be less confused if you used Darwn's term: "descent with modification." Let's do that so you don't get mixed up in the discussion.
You're right I am. Why wouldn't I?
I'd be less confused if I stick to God, in His words in scriptures, as they are revealed.
You would do best if you stopped accepting men's revisions of His word.
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
Barbarian asks:
Why is that a concern?
Not really a concern,
Probably not a good idea to bring it up, then.
Barbarian observes:
Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
Science can't support your faith for you. If faith isn't enough, you're pretty much out of luck.
Being offended is not an issue in our discussion, as also science supporting my faith isn't an issue at all.
Then, perhaps, you should accept, as most Christians do, that it isn't important to know.
Jesus Christ is more than enough for me. He is everything to me. How about you?
Well, He's not my wife. He isn't my house. He isn't a lot of things. But He is my Lord and Savior. Focus on that, and you won't be bothered by the other things.
It's good that you believe that souls did not evolve.
But the soul pre-existing? What you have in Jer. 1:5 does not teach anything close to that.
Of course, it does. Explicitly so. It says that long before the man's body existed, God knew him.
Besides, that only concerns Jeremiah, not mankind.
So you're claiming that God created Jeremiah's soul before his body was formed, but He doesn't do that for other men? Why do you assume that?
In that passage, God identified Himself to be sovereign over Jeremiah.
And God is not sovereign over other men who follow Him? How do you figure that?
One is that He foreknew him before he was born,
If you have to change "knew" to "foreknew" to make your point, isn't that an important fact to consider?
second is God had caused him to be born
So your claim is that other men are not caused to be born by God? How so?
and third is that God had separated him for a holy service.
Do you not believe each one of us is called to serve God?
None of your objections to scripture make any sense.
Saying that according to God, life was produced from something, from previously created things is a deceptive lie.
Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 1:11 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.
Genesis 1:20 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.
Genesis 1:24 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.'
How can these be lies? They are the word of God.
: 4WD Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 13:37:05
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 08:36:30
Perhaps you can tell us what these "stuff" are.
I suspect that you will pass on this one.
Essentially extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy which condensed upon cooling to form the fundamental particles from which make up the entire matter of the universe.
Really? Who told you that? If not God, then who? Are you certain about that? If that is the truth, then it must come from God.
And you want us to believe that these "stuff" are what God created ex nihilo from way back some billion years ago which evolved to what is at the present, including man?
So, Geneses 1:1 goes
In the beginning, God created extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 18:41:32
So you believe your body was created by evolution.
Actually, the species H. sapiens was created by evolution.
What's the difference?
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 18:41:32On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb
I'm pretty sure my body wasn't formed in your mother's womb. Truthfully, I don't remember the event, but I have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Well then, stick with your evidence sir. I'll stick to God's words.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 18:41:32I can see here that you believe that the soul is immortal. May I know the scriptures that supports this?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
Daniel 12:2 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt
Nothing in there sir. Perhaps if scriptures is scientific writings, you would understand it better.
So you believe your body was created by evolution.
Barbarian chuckles:
Actually, the species H. sapiens was created by evolution.
What's the difference?
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.
On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb
Barbarian observes:
I'm pretty sure my body wasn't formed in your mother's womb. Truthfully, I don't remember the event, but I have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Well then, stick with your evidence sir. I'll stick to God's words.
God says I was formed in your mother's womb? (Barbarian checks) Nope. He doesn't.
I can see here that you believe that the soul is immortal. May I know the scriptures that supports this?
(God says human souls are immortal)
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
Daniel 12:2 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt
Nothing in there sir.
It's God's word. If our souls go to everlasting life, or everlasting contempt, the key is "everlasting." That's what immortal souls are. You can like it, or you can dislike it, but that's what God says. I believe Him. You should, too.
Perhaps if scriptures is scientific writings,
It's not scientific. It's just God talking about our everlasting souls.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49Very well, it is not by evolution. Accretion theory perhaps? Just the same, it's some theory that man came up with.
You've confused "theory" and "hypothesis." When scientists come up with a possible explanation, it's a hypothesis. After a hypothesis has been repeatedly verified by evidence, it's a theory. Would you like to know how we can be sure enough about it to qualify as a settled theory?
Nice deviation sir. The point is, even while you claim to be sure enough of what you are saying, the truth is, you really are not. What you have there is a guess which you have found a way to convinced yourself that it is what you make of it to be. But then, even no matter how much one is convinced by himself of anything to be something, it may well be the truth for him, but it does not make that something to be the truth. It's a vain exercise, I would have to say. If at all you want to know the truth, the Christian you claim you are, you should know where to find it.
If you had spent much time studying the physical through science and was good at it, perhaps you can devote some time studying the spiritual through the Spirit and be good at it. You can start by studying why the Son had to come down from heaven in relation to the truth.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49
Convinced in themselves, by their scientific work and minds
Evidence. Every hypothesis makes testable claims. If those claims, when tested, are repeatedly shown to be correct, then and only then can it be considered a theory.
Yes, evidence so you always point to. Evidence which may and may not be accepted by anybody to be. And exactly what I said, that by the things you accepted to be evidence by your scientific work and minds, are convinced in yourselves, that they are what you guessed they were. It's your guess and your self conviction.
Repetition may well lead to conviction, but may as well lead to deception.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49accepted it to be that which happened and how it happened. The bottom line is, it is a guess
You're confusing "hypothesis" and "theory" again.
No sir. I am not even talking of hypothesis and theory.
Can you honestly tell God that it is certainly by the scientific theory of evolution is how He created mankind? If not, then all you have there is a guess, a hypothesis, a theory, or what have you, and not the truth. And if it's not the truth, then I'm pretty sure you know what it is so that I don't need to tell you what it is.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49
and that not one of them, including you, really knows for certain.
We don't know for certain that the Sun will appear in the east, tomorrow morning. But we have enough evidence that denying it is foolish. Theories are like that.
Our knowing not for certain that the sun will appear in the East tomorrow morning does not refute what I said. In fact it supports it. And that is not a theory, but is truth.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49when does your scientific calculation say that something had evolved to what you refer to be the "earth"?
Barbarian observes:
You're a bit confused. Populations of living things evolve. Perhaps you'd be less confused if you used Darwn's term: "descent with modification." Let's do that so you don't get mixed up in the discussion.
You're right I am. Why wouldn't I?
I'd be less confused if I stick to God, in His words in scriptures, as they are revealed.
You would do best if you stopped accepting men's revisions of His word.
Well, what made you think I accept men's word in relation to God's word? Well, I don't. As I said, I stick to God's words. If there be any man whose word I accept, are the men chosen and inspired by God, such as are Paul, Peter, John, et al.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
Barbarian asks:
Why is that a concern?
Not really a concern,
Probably not a good idea to bring it up, then.
Not if you say that to evade it. For you have cut short what I said there. So that the readers may not be mislead, here's a complete version of my post:
"Not really a concern, but more of an inquiry in relation to your concern of showing that God created man as spoken in Genesis, is by evolution. And since evolution deals with time, so I ask. So, what is the scientific calculation to that?" Your evasion tells a lot about you sir.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49
Barbarian observes:
Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
Science can't support your faith for you. If faith isn't enough, you're pretty much out of luck.
Being offended is not an issue in our discussion, as also science supporting my faith isn't an issue at all.
Then, perhaps, you should accept, as most Christians do, that it isn't important to know.
There is no truth that I would not want to know and no truth that is not important to know. But truth comes from God. And truth is known through the Holy Spirit and in the writings of inspired men of God about His works, not through scientists and in their writings about his works.
Anyway, I can see that you don't have any answer to my question. That's okay. I perfectly understand why. No need to find excuse.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:24:49Jesus Christ is more than enough for me. He is everything to me. How about you?
Well, He's not my wife. He isn't my house. He isn't a lot of things. But He is my Lord and Savior. Focus on that, and you won't be bothered by the other things.
So, as you confessed, Jesus Christ is not a lot of things to you.
Is He not your God?
Is He not your life?
Is He not your shepherd?
Is He not your teacher?
Is He not your brother?
Is He not your friend?
Is He not your King?
.....and so on.
That is truly what makes the difference.
I invite you to make Him your everything, and you won't be bothered by anything nor anybody, not even by Darwin, Einstein, et al.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06It's good that you believe that souls did not evolve.
But the soul pre-existing? What you have in Jer. 1:5 does not teach anything close to that.
Of course, it does. Explicitly so. It says that long before the man's body existed, God knew him.
You are not paying attention to what I posted sir. Besides, knowing Jeremiah before Jeremiah actually was born, does not say that Jeremiah's soul existed prior to his birth.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06
Besides, that only concerns Jeremiah, not mankind.
So you're claiming that God created Jeremiah's soul before his body was formed, but He doesn't do that for other men? Why do you assume that?
No sir. Jer. 1:5 does not say that God created Jeremiah's soul before his body was formed. That's your contention, not mine. What Jer.1:5 says is
Jer.1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."
For God to know Jeremiah before he formed him in the womb, does not mean Jeremiah's soul must have to literally exist. If you know God, that He is all knowing, and that to Him, those things which do not exist are as though they did, you will understand that.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06
In that passage, God identified Himself to be sovereign over Jeremiah.
And God is not sovereign over other men who follow Him? How do you figure that?
And who is saying that God is not sovereign over other man? Not me.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06One is that He foreknew him before he was born,
If you have to change "knew" to "foreknew" to make your point, isn't that an important fact to consider?
I did not change "knew" to "foreknew" sir. The verse says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". If you just put a little thought about that, it calls for the foreknowledge of God for that to make sense.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06
second is God had caused him to be born
So your claim is that other men are not caused to be born by God? How so?
While there is not one man that comes to existence without the knowledge of God and God forming them in the womb, there are men whom God had elected and chosen to carry out some specific purpose. And one of them is Jeremiah. For a better appreciation of this, consider Isaac.
I thought you knew that all along.
Since you brought this up, here's a question for you. I'm sure you are aware that through science, scientists today have devised ways to reproduce a being. And that is by artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning and embryonic splitting, or cleavage.
Who do you say caused the men born out of these artificial means to be born, God or the scientists?
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:32:06
and third is that God had separated him for a holy service.
Do you not believe each one of us is called to serve God?
None of your objections to scripture make any sense.
I believe all men must serve God. And while all may well be called, not all were specifically chosen such as Jeremiah, as also were Moses, Peter and Paul, et al.
I would not be surprised if you don't find any sense in what I said regarding the scriptures you cited in support of what you believe and of your take of certain scientific theories, if you don't claim to be a Christian. But since you do, then I'm surprised about that.
Very well, it is not by evolution. Accretion theory perhaps? Just the same, it's some theory that man came up with.
Barbarian observes:
You've confused "theory" and "hypothesis." When scientists come up with a possible explanation, it's a hypothesis. After a hypothesis has been repeatedly verified by evidence, it's a theory. Would you like to know how we can be sure enough about it to qualify as a settled theory?
Nice deviation sir.
Correction. You confused "hypothesis" and "theory."
If you had spent much time studying the physical through science and was good at it, perhaps you can devote some time studying the spiritual through the Spirit and be good at it. You can start by studying why the Son had to come down from heaven in relation to the truth.
If you spent more time listening to God, you would probably not need science to help your faith.
Yes, evidence so you always point to. Evidence which may and may not be accepted by anybody to be.
Doesn't matter if you accept it or not. There's an objective reality. Instead of worrying about what science says, try to align yourself with what God says.
Can you honestly tell God that it is certainly by the scientific theory of evolution is how He created mankind?
Why does it bother you so that He did? You're putting your faith in what men told you about scripture, instead of what scripture says. You need to trust God. If not, then all you have there is a guess, a hypothesis, a theory, or what have you, and not the truth. And if it's not the truth, then I'm pretty sure you know what it is so that I don't need to tell you what it is.
We don't know for certain that the Sun will appear in the east, tomorrow morning. But we have enough evidence that denying it is foolish. Theories are like that.
Our knowing not for certain that the sun will appear in the East tomorrow morning does not refute what I said.
Scripture refutes what you said. In fact, God doesn't care about your opinion on evolution. Your salvation depends on other things that He does care about. Find out what those things are, and then follow that.
I'd be less confused if I stick to God, in His words in scriptures, as they are revealed.
That's what I've been telling you. You would do best if you stopped accepting men's revisions of His word.
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
As you learned, science is about the physical universe. You keep trying to use science to shore up your faith. It won't do that for you. Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
Being offended is not an issue in our discussion, as also science supporting my faith isn't an issue at all.
I see your denial, but your behavior suggests that it's the core issue here.
There is no truth that I would not want to know and no truth that is not important to know.
It is true that there are 83 blocks on my front porch, but it doesn't strike me as important to know that.
But truth comes from God.
I just counted. Perhaps if you trusted Him in all things, it would be easier.
And truth is known through the Holy Spirit and in the writings of inspired men of God about His works, not through scientists and in their writings about his works.
It is true that mass distorts space. But we found out by going to see. God gave us intelligence and curiosity to learn things like that.
Anyway, I can see that you don't have any answer to my question.
The answer to your discomfort isn't something I can give you. You have to come to terms with yourself and your relationship with God.
Jesus Christ is more than enough for me. He is everything to me. How about you?
Well, He's not my wife. He isn't my house. He isn't a lot of things. But He is my Lord and Savior. Focus on that, and you won't be bothered by the other things.
So, as you confessed, Jesus Christ is not a lot of things to you.
To me, He's my Lord and Savior. My God. That seems like a lot to me, although perhaps not to you.
I invite you to trust Him even to the point of accepting creation His way, and you won't be bothered by anything nor anybody, not even by Darwin, Einstein, et al.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 19:37:35
Saying that according to God, life was produced from something, from previously created things is a deceptive lie.
Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 1:11 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.
Genesis 1:20 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.
Genesis 1:24 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.'
How can these be lies? They are the word of God.
I'll take it from this that you agree with 4WD that life is produced, not given. But if you disagree with him that God is said to create only ex nihilo, so that man is not created by God in that sense, then you are a bit out of context here.
Nonetheless, let me comment on your post here.
The scriptures you cited are definitely not lies. And I did not say they are, how dare I?
All the cited verses speaks of God creating by "And God said"...
Whatever is created there by God, as to be said as "living creatures" are those which God created to have the breathe of life. This breathe of life is not something produced nor created by God, for life is in God. And God is life. As God is eternal, life is so. And as God is not produced nor created and so is life. No life comes out of or evolve from out of anything that does not have life and is not life.
Consider the creation of man, wherein God in scriptures gave some detail:
Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:49:17
So you believe your body was created by evolution.
Barbarian chuckles:
Actually, the species H. sapiens was created by evolution.
No matter how you play that with words sir, it is the physical, the flesh, the body, that was a product of that evolution that you speak about. That what body you and I have now was brought about by the evolution theory that you speak about. You believe that, but I don't.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:49:17Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.
Then why not say that you are not an evolved creature? If then each of us is not an evolved creature, when we are taken together, will we be said to be an evolved population? That does not add up sir.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:49:17On the other hand, I believe God created it, not by evolution, but formed it in my mothers womb
Barbarian observes:
I'm pretty sure my body wasn't formed in your mother's womb. Truthfully, I don't remember the event, but I have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Well then, stick with your evidence sir. I'll stick to God's words.
God says I was formed in your mother's womb? (Barbarian checks) Nope. He doesn't.
Of course God did not say you were formed in my mother's womb. So now, if it's not a typo (which I ignored), you can cut your nonsense there. It isn't funny at all. Perhaps, it's time for you to get funny? Just say so.
: The Barbarian Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:49:17I can see here that you believe that the soul is immortal. May I know the scriptures that supports this?
(God says human souls are immortal)
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
Daniel 12:2 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt
Nothing in there sir.
It's God's word. If our souls go to everlasting life, or everlasting contempt, the key is "everlasting." That's what immortal souls are. You can like it, or you can dislike it, but that's what God says. I believe Him. You should, too.
It's not scientific. It's just God talking about our everlasting souls.
Nobody says the cited scriptures are not God's words.
There's simply nothing in those verses that says man's (in his unsaved state) soul is immortal.
Anything that is immortal is exempt from death.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
If you had spent much time studying the physical through science and was good at it, perhaps you can devote some time studying the spiritual through the Spirit and be good at it. You can start by studying why the Son had to come down from heaven in relation to the truth.
If you spent more time listening to God, you would probably not need science to help your faith.
And who says I need science to me of my faith? Are you hearing voices elsewhere sir?
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
Can you honestly tell God that it is certainly by the scientific theory of evolution is how He created mankind?
Why does it bother you so that He did? You're putting your faith in what men told you about scripture, instead of what scripture says. You need to trust God. If not, then all you have there is a guess, a hypothesis, a theory, or what have you, and not the truth. And if it's not the truth, then I'm pretty sure you know what it is so that I don't need to tell you what it is.
Any lie bothers me sir. Even lies taken to be truth by most people.
And again, who told you I'm putting my faith in what men told me about scriptures? You're hearing voices again sir. You ought to be careful and prayerful.
So, apparently you can't honestly tell God that it is certainly by the scientific theory of evolution is how He created mankind. Finally.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
We don't know for certain that the Sun will appear in the east, tomorrow morning. But we have enough evidence that denying it is foolish. Theories are like that.
Our knowing not for certain that the sun will appear in the East tomorrow morning does not refute what I said.
Scripture refutes what you said. In fact, God doesn't care about your opinion on evolution. Your salvation depends on other things that He does care about. Find out what those things are, and then follow that.
Well, I don't have an opinion on evolution. I am not one of those who made that up. But I think you are, if not, one who have fellowship with those who did.
Deviation to salvation again sir? Aren't you tired of doing that yet?
If you want to talk about salvation, which I say is better for you than this thread, I invite you to participate in the salvation topics in this forum. I'd be glad to see you there.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
I'd be less confused if I stick to God, in His words in scriptures, as they are revealed.
That's what I've been telling you. You would do best if you stopped accepting men's revisions of His word.
And that's what I've been doing sir. And perhaps you can do the same.
Scientists tends to complicate things more than simplify. So, the confusion, especially of the non-scientists.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
And going a bit more further, when does your scientific calculation say that the evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form?
As you learned, science is about the physical universe. You keep trying to use science to shore up your faith. It won't do that for you. Science isn't about the supernatural. Would it offend you if Adam had been a Neandertal or H. erectus instead of H. sapiens sapiens? Why would that matter?
And I am asking you about the physical, not spiritual. The time when evolution had reached the stage where the things spoken of in Genesis, as that of the Garden of Eden had come to that form concerns the physical earth. How can that be anything about my faith? I'm questioning your belief and teaching of the scientific evolution, accretion, or what have you. This is what this thread is all about, and not about faith.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
Being offended is not an issue in our discussion, as also science supporting my faith isn't an issue at all.
I see your denial, but your behavior suggests that it's the core issue here.
Denial? Are you hearing voices again? Forget about that, and just stick to the subject matter. That is if you don't want to be excused.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12There is no truth that I would not want to know and no truth that is not important to know.
It is true that there are 83 blocks on my front porch, but it doesn't strike me as important to know that.
Well, it may not be to you. But if it is the truth, telling it to me, no matter how irrelevant that may be to me in so many ways, is important to me, because you told me the truth. When I hear truth, no matter how insignificant, I hear God. When I hear lie, I hear the devil.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
But truth comes from God.
I just counted. Perhaps if you trusted Him in all things, it would be easier.
Isn't it easier for you in your case? Too sad.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
And truth is known through the Holy Spirit and in the writings of inspired men of God about His works, not through scientists and in their writings about his works.
It is true that mass distorts space. But we found out by going to see. God gave us intelligence and curiosity to learn things like that.
I'm sure God gave us intelligence and curiosity for many reasons. But to learn things like how He created the universe, I don't think so. He did not give you intelligence to know what He had not intended for you to know. Just look where scientists are led by their curiosity. They have this human cloning thing, artificial insemination, et al. That is a statement that they wanted to be like God, don't you think so? All these are dangerous works which could lead to destruction. Care to read Gen. 11. We ought to learn from God in scriptures, not from man.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12
Anyway, I can see that you don't have any answer to my question.
The answer to your discomfort isn't something I can give you. You have to come to terms with yourself and your relationship with God.
I am not at all seeking answers for any discomfort. And if there may be so, I won't come to you for answers. You aren't anything close to my God, the God of comfort. Rather, it is a matter of exposing deceptive lies to the light for all to see.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 01:34:12 Jesus Christ is more than enough for me. He is everything to me. How about you?
Well, He's not my wife. He isn't my house. He isn't a lot of things. But He is my Lord and Savior. Focus on that, and you won't be bothered by the other things.
So, as you confessed, Jesus Christ is not a lot of things to you.
To me, He's my Lord and Savior. My God. That seems like a lot to me, although perhaps not to you.
I invite you to trust Him even to the point of accepting creation His way, and you won't be bothered by anything nor anybody, not even by Darwin, Einstein, et al.
He is your Lord and Savior, your God. I'm always glad to hear such profession of faith. But, I hope you would not deny him as your King, as your teacher, as your friend, as your life, as your shepherd. But that's your choice to make.
As to your invitation, I trust God in everything, and accept creation His way as He revealed in scriptures, but not your way, the way of science, as scientists say by evolution.
Being not bothered by lies is not something I see myself becoming. I always will try to stand up for the truth and try to fight the lies, for the love of God and my neighbor. Although perhaps you won't.
: Michael2012 Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:30:57So, Geneses 1:1 goes
In the beginning, God created extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
And if He had, what do you think Moses, or the rest of humanity before the 20th century, would have made of that? It certainly would not have said anything to them about creation. It would have been a meaningless statement to them, just as it is to you today.
: Michael2012 Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:41:30Nothing in there sir. Perhaps if scriptures is scientific writings, you would understand it better.
Perhaps if you were more proficient in the English language you would understand the English Scriptures better.
: 4WD Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 04:19:29
Perhaps if you were more proficient in the English language you would understand the English Scriptures better.
Perhaps sir. Thank you.
And perhaps if you just will not evade whatever that obviously refutes your take on creation, it would make you be a better apologist.
: Michael2012 Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 04:30:25
Perhaps sir. Thank you.
And perhaps if you just will not evade whatever that obviously refutes your take on creation, it would make you be a better apologist.
You certainly have nothing that refutes my take on creation. In fact you don't even understand the basic meaning of the words contained in the Scriptural presentation of that creation. Pathetic but true.
: 4WD Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 05:27:37
And I agree with what God had Moses write. His testimony is not faulty reasoning. His is not reasoning at all; his is simply writing as God directed. The reasoning lies with you. You regularly attribute faulty reasoning to fallen humanity and since you are one of the fallen humanity, you by your own charge engage in faulty reasoning. The joke is not in what Moses wrote; he wrote as God directed. The joke is always in the interpretation. It is, or should be, evident that what God directed Moses to write about creation in Genesis was not to be taken as a literal account of God's work of creation.
OK. Please explain the real meaning of God's word given to Moses for us. If you agree with those words, then surely you understand them, do you not? If you cannot even explain what they actually mean, how can you agree with them? You don't even really know what they mean. Why would it be a joke for people to believe what Moses' words actually literally say, but not a joke when someone says they agree with those words but do not even know what they really mean? Do you understand that which you claim to agree with or not? If you do, please explain the words of the creation account according to that understanding for us. If you cannot, why should anyone believe you?
Also, why did God command Moses to write a commandment to be observed commemorating the creation account as a literal event, when He knew He didn't even mean for that account to be taken literally? Every single Jew or otherwise that has ever kept the seventh day Sabbath, does so in commemoration of God's personal testimony by word of mouth and in written form, that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. So you believe God commanded people to commemorate an event that never really happened, and then even punished them many times over for not doing so, is this correct? Why are such illogical reasonings not a joke, while just believing what God's word simply says is? According to Moses, God said and wrote the following -
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,................................
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Was God lying? Did Moses lie when he wrote that God spoke and wrote the above words? If God did not intend for the creation account to be taken literally, then why did He exactly and conclusively state that it was a literal event thousands of years after the fact?
Exo 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone,
written with the finger of God.Did God lie again, or did Moses lie again? What is the truth? How can you be so sure that what you say is truth, when you cannot even explain what you believe according to scripture? The scriptures describe it as a literal event in Genesis, God said that it was literal when speaking to the entire nation of Israel, said the same thing to Moses twice, and wrote it twice for him and all Israel twice also. Nevertheless, if what you contend is true, all those statements were lies. To the extent that all who would actually believe them are a joke, according to you. Go figure.
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/religion-of-nature-social-darwinism/
The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism
A good read regarding some of the major ill effects of Darwinism.
: Amo Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 09:39:45
OK. Please explain the real meaning of God's word given to Moses for us. If you agree with those words, then surely you understand them, do you not? If you cannot even explain what they actually mean, how can you agree with them?
The words were given for us to observe the physical aspects of nature, it's a progression that we can witness as the mystery is further revealed to us with each new discovery. The words were never designed to be a paint by numbers for simpletons that cannot grasp critical thought processes.
I did not change "knew" to "foreknew" sir.
You certainly did. The verse says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". You changed "knew" to "foreknew." If you must alter the word of God to make your point, that's a pretty good indication that you got it wrong.
He is your Lord and Savior, your God. I'm always glad to hear such profession of faith.
I'm puzzled as to why you objected when I pointed out that He is not everything. (I mentioned that He's not my wife, and that he's not my house, for examples) He can't be everything for you, if you're a Christian. Pantheism is not consistent with Christian belief.
As to your invitation, I trust God in everything,
Then why would you accept man's revision of scripture? Why not just accept it His way?
: 4WD Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 05:36:49
You certainly have nothing that refutes my take on creation. In fact you don't even understand the basic meaning of the words contained in the Scriptural presentation of that creation. Pathetic but true.
So, why do you evade this and not address it? All you have done with this is evasion. If you evade this here yet again it would be the third time. And if perhaps I'll give you the opportunity to address it a hundred times, you would have evaded it easily a hundred times too. So, here's your opportunity to not evade it.
4WD said that God didn't create the body, but that it grew from a fertilized egg, the joining of the ovum and sperm. He believes that is not creation since he takes creation to mean only to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, I see that as God creating the body.
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that? Here's your take of creation:
1. God creates ex nihilo only.
2. God created the heavens and the earth (figuratively) to refer to some extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy, where every other thing evolved from and was produced.
If God creates only ex nihilo, then:
3. God did not create the heavens and earth (literally).
4. God did not create the grass, plants and trees.
5. God did not create birds, beast and creeping creatures.
6. God did not create the human body.
7. God did not create anything except some extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
Truth from God's words in scriptures:
1. God created the heavens and the earth.
2. God created the grass, plants, and trees.
3. God created living creatures, birds, sea creatures.
4. God created cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth.
5. God created man, male and female.
6. God created all things that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
: Michael2012 Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:15:32
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
Absolutely, although just because that is what I believe it doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:10:08
I did not change "knew" to "foreknew" sir.
You certainly did. The verse says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". You changed "knew" to "foreknew." If you must alter the word of God to make your point, that's a pretty good indication that you got it wrong.
I did not change "knew" to "foreknew" sir. The verse says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". If you just put a little thought about that, it calls for the foreknowledge of God for that to make sense".
The word "knew" there does not suggest nor denote pre-existence, but to have knowledge of. For us humans, it is necessary that you exist, if I would say I knew you. And to say I knew you before you were born, would be an obvious impossibility, if not a lie. But if it is God saying "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you", that will not be the case, for God have foreknowledge and that to Him, even things which do not exist are as though they did.
But if you really think that Jeremiah's soul pre-existed his body, and with that, you take all souls to pre-exist their bodies, then that's your doctrine, not God's. Jeremiah 1:5 just don't say and teach us that.
: Alan Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:51:43
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:15:32
You see, if we take 4WD's understanding of creation, then what did God create? Not man, not any living thing, not the earth, and basically nothing for that matter. For 4WD believes what scientists have come up with regarding the plants, animals, man, that all are a product of evolution, that is, coming from something else and so not created, since he takes creation only as ex nihilo. Do you agree with him on that?
Absolutely, although just because that is what I believe it doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan.
So, you too would say that God did not create the earth and the heavens, and the the grass, plants, and trees, the birds, sea creatures, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, and man?
Well, I don't have any problem with that. But you sure have a problem with scriptures.
A bunch of retarded frog squirrels mated with a fish and out came a monkey who became human when God put a soul in.
Talk about ridiculous.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:13:51
He is your Lord and Savior, your God. I'm always glad to hear such profession of faith.
I'm puzzled as to why you objected when I pointed out that He is not everything. (I mentioned that He's not my wife, and that he's not my house, for examples) He can't be everything for you, if you're a Christian. Pantheism is not consistent with Christian belief.
You would if you would take "everything" to mean that way. It's a figure of speech. When I said "He (Jesus Christ) is everything to me", it means to point to all things good that is attributable to Him, with special focus of Him being my Lord, God and Savior, and taking Him with the highest degree of importance, affection, and love, and is an expression of worship. Obviously it does not mean He is my wife, nor it means, He is my underwear, shoes, toy or what.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:13:51As to your invitation, I trust God in everything,
Then why would you accept man's revision of scripture? Why not just accept it His way?
Haven't I told you yet? I don't. As I said, I stick to God's words. If there be any man whose word I accept, are the men chosen and inspired by God, such as are Moses, Paul, Peter, John, et al.
: Texas Conservative Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 12:18:31A bunch of retarded frog squirrels mated with a fish and out came a monkey who became human when God put a soul in.
Talk about ridiculous.
Yes indeed. You couldn't be much more ridiculous than that, but alas, I am sure you will try.
(Barbarian, regarding the assertion that God is everything)
Pantheism is not consistent with Christian belief.
You would if you would take "everything" to mean that way.
You seemed unhappy when I showed you that He isn't everything.
When I said "He (Jesus Christ) is everything to me", it means to point to all things good that is attributable to Him, with special focus of Him being my Lord, God and Savior, and taking Him with the highest degree of importance, affection, and love, and is an expression of worship.
Pretty much what I told you. I'm glad to hear you say it.
As to your invitation, I trust God in everything,
Barbarian asks:
Then why would you accept man's revision of scripture? Why not just accept it His way?
Haven't I told you yet? I don't.
You should. As you saw, YE creationism is a modern revision of His word.
: Michael2012 Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:58:54
Absolutely, although just because that is what I believe it doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan.
So, you too would say that God did not create the earth and the heavens, and the the grass, plants, and trees, the birds, sea creatures, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, and man?
Well, I don't have any problem with that. But you sure have a problem with scriptures.
I think you missed my point, whether the physical being of man was a poof being from dust to existence or if it was through the course of a long period of time doesn't make His creation any more or any less "creation", the outcome was His plan rather than the method.
: Texas Conservative Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 12:18:31
A bunch of retarded frog squirrels mated with a fish and out came a monkey who became human when God put a soul in.
Talk about ridiculous.
Must be a Michigan thing rofl
: Alan Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 14:33:24
Must be a Michigan thing rofl
Not quite verbatim, but these are 4WD's views.
I am glad I have stayed free of this thread for the most part, even though I started it. IT truly infuriates me to read what some have written who call themselves a believer in the word of God. When one chooses not to believe the record of Genesis 1,2, and allow men of this world to form their understanding of creation instead of believing the testimony of God is the sad state in which the professing church has apostatized to.
: RB Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 15:47:19
I am glad I have stayed free of this thread for the most part, even though I started it. IT truly infuriates me to read what some have written who call themselves a believer in the word of God. When one chooses not to believe the record of Genesis 1,2, and allow men of this world to form their understanding of creation instead of believing the testimony of God is the sad state in which the professing church has apostatized to.
I'm glad you have stayed clear of it also ::tippinghat::
: RB Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 15:47:19When one chooses not to believe the record of Genesis 1,2, and allow men of this world to form their understanding of creation instead of believing the testimony of God is the sad state in which the professing church has apostatized to.
So perhaps you could tell us what you think is the meaning of
"And there was evening and there was morning, one day", when until day four there is neither sun nor moon. What is evening and morning without the sun. What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you?
: Michael2012 Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 11:15:32
If God creates only ex nihilo, then:
3. God did not create the heavens and earth (literally).
4. God did not create the grass, plants and trees.
5. God did not create birds, beast and creeping creatures.
6. God did not create the human body.
7. God did not create anything except some extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
We know that God is power (or energy in scientific terms)
So if God is eternal, and God is power, and God is not created...then high density energy could not have been created because it already was.
Hence, God did not create anything. He just borrowed from something He already possessed and which pre-existed together with Him.
: AVZ Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 19:20:24
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:15:32
If God creates only ex nihilo, then:
3. God did not create the heavens and earth (literally).
4. God did not create the grass, plants and trees.
5. God did not create birds, beast and creeping creatures.
6. God did not create the human body.
7. God did not create anything except some extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
We know that God is power (or energy in scientific terms)
So if God is eternal, and God is power, and God is not created...then high density energy could not have been created because it already was.
Hence, God did not create anything. He just borrowed from something He already possessed and which pre-existed together with Him.
I get your point there AVZ. However, I don't think that would be correct to say.
While God is power, I don't see Him anything close to being energy. If at all He is energy, that would be divine energy, different from physical energy. Nonetheless, I don't know Him to be that, for we know that He is not energy, much less physical energy, but the eternal almighty Spirit, having consciousness, personality, and life.
Relative to His creation, here's scriptures:
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
But 4WD, I think, take "created" here to mean not "ex nihilo". And if we take his take of creation that is attributable to God as only that which came to being ex nihilo, he makes God not the creator of anything, though he says God created some "stuff" which he says is some extraordinarily high temperature, high density (physical) energy. Of course he is guessing by that. He take this "stuff" as that which then by evolution (random or not, I don't know) have produced all things, including mankind.
I see this to be a dangerous doctrine. And I'm not about to let it go without a stand and defense for the truth, that God created all things, things that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, and that God created mankind.
: The Barbarian Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 14:02:51
Barbarian asks:
Then why would you accept man's revision of scripture? Why not just accept it His way?
Quote
Haven't I told you yet? I don't.
You should. As you saw, YE creationism is a modern revision of His word.
And as I said, I don't. I am amazed of your insistence that I do or I did, despite saying to you a number of times now that I don't. Well, if it makes you happy insisting, then go ahead and insist, perhaps every time you reply on my post.
I will take YE creationism in the same way and sense that I will take OE creationism. If you say that YE creationism is a modern revision of God's word, so too is OE creationism. And this thinking, of both, is all but the product of their science. Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that. For doing so would only draw them away from the revelation of God, putting themselves in harms way.
Your insistence pushes me to say this.
How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God? Such pride, I would have to say. Worst still is when one tries to justify such attempt as a work that glorifies God. Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more. They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
What wisdom, what intelligence, what power, what love, what truth do you not see in Christ that God may be known better, that you are still in search for to see elsewhere and through something other than Christ? If you think there is more you need to know other than what Christ had manifested and revealed about God, and think that you can find it elsewhere through science, you better take a hold of yourself and consider taking your eyes back to Jesus. Be truly wise by learning from the error of Adam and Eve who desired to have more, desiring to be more wise, and be more than what God had made of them and had blessed them with.
: Alan Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 14:31:50Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:58:54
Absolutely, although just because that is what I believe it doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan.
So, you too would say that God did not create the earth and the heavens, and the the grass, plants, and trees, the birds, sea creatures, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, and man?
Well, I don't have any problem with that. But you sure have a problem with scriptures.
I think you missed my point, whether the physical being of man was a poof being from dust to existence or if it was through the course of a long period of time doesn't make His creation any more or any less "creation", the outcome was His plan rather than the method.
Well, perhaps you are right. I am sorry about that. But I am sure I was not in the wrong to say that you believe as 4WD does, saying "
that is what I believe".
Regarding the point I missed in your post, here's my comment on that.
No one here says that God didn't have a plan. The issue about the scientific theory of evolution, the evolution of man, is not that on God's plan, but on the matter of HOW God created.
Let me cut and paste what I've posted just prior to this post for your reading here.
How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God? Such pride, I would have to say. Worst still is when one tries to justify such attempt as a work that glorifies God. Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more. They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
What wisdom, what intelligence, what power, what love, what truth do you not see in Christ that God may be known better, that you are still in search for to see elsewhere and through something other than Christ? If you think there is more you need to know other than what Christ had manifested and revealed about God, and think that you can find it elsewhere through science, you better take a hold of yourself and consider taking your eyes back to Jesus. Be truly wise by learning from the error of Adam and Eve who desired to have more, desiring to be more wise, and be more than what God had made of them and had blessed them with.
: AVZ Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 19:20:24
We know that God is power (or energy in scientific terms)
So if God is eternal, and God is power, and God is not created...then high density energy could not have been created because it already was.
Hence, God did not create anything. He just borrowed from something He already possessed and which pre-existed together with Him.
Do you not have even a clue to the difference between the spiritual and the physical? Apparently not. But that does explain a lot of your beliefs.
Hey Michael, go back to my reply #2793 to RB concerning evening and morning. I doubt that RB will try to answer my question, but perhaps you could step in for him. What is God's message there concerning evening and morning? What does it mean there was evening and morning when there wasn't a sun or a moon yet?
: 4WD Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 17:14:55So perhaps you could tell us what you think is the meaning of "And there was evening and there was morning, one day", when until day four there is neither sun nor moon. What is evening and morning without the sun. What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you?
God holds within HIMSELF infinite power of LIGHT, that is greater than the sun and moon could ever give forth. Those only show a glimpse of what he has WITHIN HIMSELF. Calvin states it very well himself.
Let there be light~"It we proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures. 20) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, (that 4WD believes...RB) that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known." Emphasis are mine~RB
What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you? That His power is NOT limited to having LIGHT within Himself GREATER than the sun that he created gives forth.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 06:41:42
God holds within HIMSELF infinite power of LIGHT, that is greater than the sun and moon could ever give forth. Those only show a glimpse of what he has WITHIN HIMSELF. Calvin states it very well himself.
Let there be light~"It we proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures. 20) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."
What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you? That His power is NOT limited to having LIGHT within Himself GREATER than the sun that he created gives forth.
Then what would the purpose of giving us the sun and the moon actually be? If the attributes necessary to perfectly sustain life were created before these bodies were placed into our solar system then why are they there? Today we fully understand that our relative distance from the sun is the determining factor of our climate, did God pass the baton at some point to give us a source of light and heat?
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 06:41:42
God holds within HIMSELF infinite power of LIGHT, that is greater than the sun and moon could ever give forth. Those only show a glimpse of what he has WITHIN HIMSELF. Calvin states it very well himself.
Let there be light~"It we proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures. 20) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."
What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you? That His power is NOT limited to having LIGHT within Himself GREATER than the sun that he created gives forth.
That you would pose that as the answer to my question and then castigate me for thinking that "day" in that same verse might not mean 24 hours is actually hilarious.
I think that it would not be possible to give a more metaphorical description of "light" than you presented there. But then you will turn around and tell me that the creation "day" must be treated as absolutely literal; it can't possibly be anything other than a 24-hour day.
Seriously, what a joke. You insist that the Genesis account of creation be taken as literal. But of course you don't do that. You take what you want to be literal and what you want to be figurative. And that quite arbitrarily -- "day" must be literal, but "light" must be figurative.
Again, what a joke. As is the whole Young Earth Creation rendering of the Genesis account of creation.
: Alan Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:14:20Then what would the purpose of giving us the sun and the moon actually be? If the attributes necessary to perfectly sustain life were created before these bodies were placed into our solar system then why are they there? Today we fully understand that our relative distance from the sun is the determining factor of our climate, did God pass the baton at some point to give us a source of light and heat?
Your obviously did
not read what I said~I
never said the attributes necessary to perfectly sustain life were created before these bodies...God had that LIGHT dwelling WITHIN HIMSELF....He THEN created the sun and moon and stars.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:32:07God had that LIGHT dwelling WITHIN HIMSELF....He THEN created the sun and moon and stars.
Another metaphorical rendering. And not a very good one. What? God has photons dwelling withing Himself?? What can that possibly even mean?
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:32:07
Your obviously did not read what I said~I never said the attributes necessary to perfectly sustain life were created before these bodies...God had that LIGHT dwelling WITHIN HIMSELF....He THEN created the sun and moon and stars.
You are still insisting that God changed it up; there was no sun but light and heat existed, then the sun entered into the picture for some unknown reason that I highly doubt anyone could explain.
: Alan Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:53:20You are still insisting that God changed it up; there was no sun but light and heat existed, then the sun entered into the picture for some unknown reason that I highly doubt anyone could explain.
Alan, you are mocking instead of following the process (only done by God to help our dull senses, he very well could have SPOKE everything into existence in one second as we NOW see it) of God's creating everything in SIX NORMAL 24 HOUR DAYS~done so
ONLY for our pitiful understanding and slowness of heart of understanding his MARVELLOUS WORKS. It is ONLY by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were NOT MADE of things that DO APPEAR.
Alan,
The YECs always insist that the Genesis account of creation must be taken as a literal account; except, of course. for those portions of the account which they think are not literal. The level of hypocrisy is truly astounding.
: 4WD Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:38:41Another metaphorical rendering. And not a very good one. What? God has photons dwelling withing Himself?? What can that possibly even mean?
Mock on sir........
: Paul1st Timothy 6:16~"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
Keeping mocking, you just may be sorry that you did.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:27:46
Alan, you are mocking instead of following the process (only done by God to help our dull senses, he very well could have SPOKE everything into existence in one second as we NOW see it) of God's creating everything in SIX NORMAL 24 HOUR DAYS~done so ONLY for our pitiful understanding and slowness of heart of understanding his MARVELLOUS WORKS. It is ONLY by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were NOT MADE of things that DO APPEAR.
Again the sheer hypocrisy of it all. "Day" is literal, "light" is not. How can we determine the difference? Ask the YEC! rofl rofl rofl
: 4WD Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:29:03Alan, The YECs always insist that the Genesis account of creation must be taken as a literal account; except, of course. for those portions of the account which they think are not literal. The level of hypocrisy is truly astounding.
Hyprocrisy is seen in those that profess to believe in God, yet deny the word of God concerning creation as Moses taught us, and refuses to receive God's testimony as little children.
: 4WD Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:32:39
Again the sheer hypocrisy of it all. "Day" is literal, "light" is not. How can we determine the difference? Ask the YEC! rofl rofl rofl
I NEVER said that darkness was NOT literal, that's you putting words into my mouth. Of course, this is par for you.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:32:27
Mock on sir........Keeping mocking, you just may be sorry that you did.
You actually think the "light" spoken of in 1 Timothy 6:16 is the same as the light spoken of in the Genesis account of creation? Good grief, RB. I apologize it is not hypocrisy; it is ignorance.
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). You think that is the "light" God was speaking of in Genesis 1:3-5? Seriously??
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:39:01
I NEVER said that darkness was NOT literal, that's you putting words into my mouth. Of course, this is par for you.
I never mentioned darkness one way or the other. I never said a thing about it. So obviously I didn't put those words in your mouth.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:36:16
Hyprocrisy is seen in those that profess to believe in God, yet deny the word of God concerning creation as Moses taught us, and refuses to receive God's testimony as little children.
No, hypocrisy is insisting that the Genesis account must be taken literally and then excusing yourself from having to do that; and then of all things insisting that is what Moses taught.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 08:36:16
Hyprocrisy is seen in those that profess to believe in God, yet deny the word of God concerning creation as Moses taught us, and refuses to receive God's testimony as little children.
You do mean agree with YOU don't you? I say that because the majority of you "theological debaters" can't agree on more than one or two things.
RB,
I'd like to share you the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Would you ever thought that anyone would mistake that to be figurative language? The very first statement of truth from Scriptures?
Unless .....
: Michael2012 Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 09:25:44
RB,
I'd like to share you the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Would you ever thought that anyone would mistake that to be figurative language? The very first statement of truth from Scriptures?
Unless .....
Love that verse, it's the truth behind all that exists.
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 02, 2018 - 20:36:46
It is interesting that you bring up, in the writer's eye, I suggest if you are as willing to give the same latitude to the writer of Genesis, evolution becomes a little more plausible.
I have done that sir. But do you think that what the theory of evolution says today is caught by the writer's eye, so that what he says in Genesis regarding the creation of God even hints of evolution as described by scientists today? Such events spoken of in the theory of evolution obviously are beyond the writer's eye, unlike that in the case of Ecclesiastes, which is not only seen and experienced by him, but even all of man.
I am not a believer in evolution, but I could be wrong. It is great to have confidence in one's interpretation of things, but humility is also a great thing and protection from doing others a grave disservice by putting obstacles in their path to God.
Although I would tend to agree the TOE cannot be caught by the writer's eye, although some might disagree. My reference was to the writer of Genesis's eye.
: AVZ Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 05:17:03
Was Genesis written from the writer's eye?
I dunno, we don't know how the writer came about his knowledge, but if the writer directly observed the events unfold, and God chose seven days in which to show him... ::pondering::
: Michael2012 Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 09:25:44
RB,
I'd like to share you the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Would you ever thought that anyone would mistake that to be figurative language? The very first statement of truth from Scriptures?
Unless .....
Michael take time and listen to this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
I will take YE creationism in the same way and sense that I will take OE creationism. If you say that YE creationism is a modern revision of God's word, so too is OE creationism.
Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
And this thinking, of both, is all but the product of their science.
Nope. Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.
How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God?
And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.
Such pride, I would have to say.
Yep.
Worst still is when one tries to justify such attempt as a work that glorifies God.
Some creationists do, and I believe they actually think that it's true.
Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more.
If they praise him for the wonder of his creation, that is entirely a good thing. Knowing more about it, does indeed amplify one's faith.
They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
Let's see what God says...
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
: RB Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 14:49:23
Michael take time and listen to this;
Seriously? Of all the nuts out there, Hovind is probably the nuttiest. A guy that refuses to pay taxes and believes that there is a conspiracy against the general population to orchestrate a new world order is beyond irrational.
: 4WD Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 04:16:39
Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Nov 03, 2018 - 22:30:57
So, Geneses 1:1 goes
In the beginning, God created extraordinarily high temperature, high density energy.
And if He had, what do you think Moses, or the rest of humanity before the 20th century, would have made of that? It certainly would not have said anything to them about creation. It would have been a meaningless statement to them, just as it is to you today.
And He had not.
But to you, he did. And perhaps, in the future, that verse would be revised again. Hopefully it will finds it's way to getting back to its original form and sense:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
: Carey Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 10:11:06
I dunno, we don't know how the writer came about his knowledge, but if the writer directly observed the events unfold, and God chose seven days in which to show him... ::pondering::
The suggestion in this thread then would be something like God showed Moses how man evolved from apes, and Moses, from his point of view, wrote that Adam fell asleep and God took one of his ribs to create Eve.
The length of time it took to create our universe is not necessarily relevant to the question whether everything was a direct creation, or things came to be through evolution.
: 4WD Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 04:40:22
Hey Michael, go back to my reply #2793 to RB concerning evening and morning. I doubt that RB will try to answer my question, but perhaps you could step in for him. What is God's message there concerning evening and morning? What does it mean there was evening and morning when there wasn't a sun or a moon yet?
If you go back to all my reply posts to you and answer all that you have evaded, perhaps I will consider, with the permission of RB.
I'm sure you know when one evades, what it suggest, shows, and means.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06Quote
I will take YE creationism in the same way and sense that I will take OE creationism. If you say that YE creationism is a modern revision of God's word, so too is OE creationism.
Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
Does not matter. I stick with what God says in scriptures about His creation. I'm definitely certain that I am right in doing so.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06
And this thinking, of both, is all but the product of their science.
Nope. Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
Whatever. The point being is that both camps believe that God created everything. But then, because of their science, they are divided. And that's sad. There's only one way to settle the division, let go of science and their scientific minds, and hold on to their heart and conscience, and to the revelation of God.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06
Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.
Yes I actually believe that.
And that has nothing to do with my computer. Not tossing out my computer does not mean I don't actually believe what I said.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God?
And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.
And so do you.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06Such pride, I would have to say.
Yep.
It's good you admit that.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06Worst still is when one tries to justify such attempt as a work that glorifies God.
Some creationists do, and I believe they actually think that it's true.
Had you not told me, though indirectly, that you actually learn more of the majesty of the Creator by learning the theory of the evolution of man and the formation of the earth? Which I'm pretty sure to you means giving glory to God. Correct me if I'm wrong.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more.
If they praise him for the wonder of his creation, that is entirely a good thing. Knowing more about it, does indeed amplify one's faith.
Which I think you imply by that that you do. But does that make TOE the truth?
I am not a scientist like you nor take the TOE as true. But I could and do praise God for the wonder of His creation, no less than those who believe in the TOE.
But this is what I'm pretty sure about, that God is not glorified by anything short of truth. Haven't you heard of those who believe that all mankind will be saved by God? Such belief appears to be glorious for God, is it not? But then, it is not the truth. And that makes it a lie. Tell me, does that glorify God? Definitely and evidently not.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
Let's see what God says...
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
And yes the heavens indeed do. Scientists or not, the Christian sees the glory of God in the heavens and in all of creation. But above all of these, fail not to consider the glory of God revealed and declared through Jesus Christ, the exact representation and perfect image of the otherwise invisible God.
I feel the same way with you regarding those who does not experience awe and joy in God's creation. Scientists or not, I am pretty sure the Christian do, and no less than you. The only difference perhaps is, unlike you, they do, not with uncertain knowledge, but with the truth of creation as revealed by the Creator himself to them.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
I stick with what God says in scriptures about His creation. I'm definitely certain that I am right in doing so.
If you're a YE creationist, you aren't following scriptures.
And this thinking, of both, is all but the product of their science.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
Whatever. The point being is that both camps believe that God created everything. But then, because of their science, they are divided.
On one side, the evidence convinced them of an old Earth and evolution. On the other side, the visions of an Adventist "prophetess" led them to the new doctrine of YE creationism.
Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.
Barbarian observes:
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.
Yes I actually believe that.
And that has nothing to do with my computer. Not tossing out my computer does not mean I don't actually believe what I said.
I'm sure you believe it. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency of you asserting that and owning a computer.
How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God?
Barbarian observes:
And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.
Such pride, I would have to say.
Barbarian observes:
Yep.
And so do you.
Nope. Science can show us some things about His creation, but not how his miracles work.
Had you not told me, though indirectly, that you actually learn more of the majesty of the Creator by learning the theory of the evolution of man and the formation of the earth?
I said it enriches my faith to know more about His creation.
Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more.
Barbarian observes:
If they praise him for the wonder of his creation, that is entirely a good thing. Knowing more about it, does indeed amplify one's faith.
But does that make TOE the truth?
The evidence makes it true. After all, there were (and still are to a degree) YE creationists who said that black people were inferior to other people, and this was a demonstration of God's will.
I am not a scientist like you nor take the TOE as true. But I could and do praise God for the wonder of His creation, no less than those who believe in the TOE.
And if you take what you see and understand, that is laudable. On the other hand, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research used his faulty ideas of creationism, to assert the inferiority of black people. That wasn't so good.
But this is what I'm pretty sure about, that God is not glorified by anything short of truth.
Yep. My point, exactly.
They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
Barbarian suggests:
Let's see what God says...
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
As I said, even many creationists take joy and instruction from His creation. The problem lies in the tendency of some to let creationism lead them off into things that do not glorify God, as Henry Morris did.
: Alan Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 21:12:56
Seriously? Of all the nuts out there, Hovind is probably the nuttiest. A guy that refuses to pay taxes and believes that there is a conspiracy against the general population to orchestrate a new world order is beyond irrational.
Well I really knew not one thing of his personal life, just as I know nothing of yours. A friend sent it to me, I should have done my research and did not. I certainly do not agree with that if that's who he is, and I was not too fond of his "overly" jesting, to be honest. Sorry.
: Michael2012 Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 22:00:41If you go back to all my reply posts to you and answer all that you have evaded, perhaps I will consider, with the permission of RB.
Brother Michael please give your input, it is more than welcome.
: Michael on: Yesterday at 22:00:41I'm sure you know when one evades, what it suggest, shows, and means.
He knows, and he also knows why
he evanded. I would show mercy, for at times we all miss others post to us, I certainly have. He's also old like me, so I know that he has.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56
Barbarian observes:
Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
I stick with what God says in scriptures about His creation. I'm definitely certain that I am right in doing so.
If you're a YE creationist, you aren't following scriptures.And this thinking, of both, is all but the product of their science.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
Whatever. The point being is that both camps believe that God created everything. But then, because of their science, they are divided.
On one side, the evidence convinced them of an old Earth and evolution. On the other side, the visions of an Adventist "prophetess" led them to the new doctrine of YE creationism.Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.
Barbarian observes:
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.Yes I actually believe that.
And that has nothing to do with my computer. Not tossing out my computer does not mean I don't actually believe what I said.
I'm sure you believe it. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency of you asserting that and owning a computer.
Please don't bring me the YE creationist thing. I am not. I am simply a Christian who takes God at His word, take it only as far as what is said in scriptures.
And I find no inconsistency in believing
"Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.", and owning a computer. So, your have no point there.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God?
Barbarian observes:
And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.Such pride, I would have to say.
Barbarian observes:
Yep.And so do you.
Nope. Science can show us some things about His creation, but not how his miracles work.
Nope? Well, even no matter how you deny that, your post clearly say you do.
Now you tell us what science can show as a deviation?
Haven't you been telling this forum that man, as explained by the scientific theory of the evolution of man, is HOW God created man? Unless you've repented of that already. And then inconsistently say that science cannot know HOW God's miracles work. Make up your mind Barbarian.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56Had you not told me, though indirectly, that you actually learn more of the majesty of the Creator by learning the theory of the evolution of man and the formation of the earth?
I said it enriches my faith to know more about His creation.
Good for you then.
But I wonder how the works of the community of man whose nature is that of a finite fallible human carnal mind, can enrich one's faith in God. Isn't that a clear case of having been deceived?
And so, you find enrichment in your faith by the scientific theory of the evolution of man. And that is because you believe that it is HOW God created all things spread over the billion years, which to you perhaps is more glorious and amazing than if God created all things spread over in just a very short time? Anyway, such matter is relative and is in the eye of the believer perhaps.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56Some justifies even, saying that by it, they come to know God more.
Barbarian observes:
If they praise him for the wonder of his creation, that is entirely a good thing. Knowing more about it, does indeed amplify one's faith.
But does that make TOE the truth?
The evidence makes it true. After all, there were (and still are to a degree) YE creationists who said that black people were inferior to other people, and this was a demonstration of God's will.
So, finally you admit to believe that TOE is true. You sure about that? This tells me that you can face up to God and tell Him that.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56I am not a scientist like you nor take the TOE as true. But I could and do praise God for the wonder of His creation, no less than those who believe in the TOE.
And if you take what you see and understand, that is laudable. On the other hand, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research used his faulty ideas of creationism, to assert the inferiority of black people. That wasn't so good.
Take your issue to the ICR sir.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56But this is what I'm pretty sure about, that God is not glorified by anything short of truth.
Yep. My point, exactly.
If it was, you've hidden it quite well.
: The Barbarian Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 01:20:56They so easily forget one of the reasons why the Son of God came to the earth, who is the express and perfect image of the invisible God, that the world may know Him.
Barbarian suggests:
Let's see what God says...
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
And yes the heavens indeed do. Scientists or not, the Christian sees the glory of God in the heavens and in all of creation. But above all of these, fail not to consider the glory of God revealed and declared through Jesus Christ, the exact representation and perfect image of the otherwise invisible God.
I feel the same way with you regarding those who does not experience awe and joy in God's creation. Scientists or not, I am pretty sure the Christian do, and no less than you. The only difference perhaps is, unlike you, they do, not with uncertain knowledge, but with the truth of creation as revealed by the Creator himself to them.
As I said, even many creationists take joy and instruction from His creation. The problem lies in the tendency of some to let creationism lead them off into things that do not glorify God, as Henry Morris did.
Perhaps you can take your issue on creationism with the concerned people, not to me. I am a simply a Christian.
: The Barbarian Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 16:06:06Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
Sir, YE creationism is NOT in conflict with the word of God, YOU and your evolutionist friends ARE~and
you more so than others.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06 Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
The man of God
also wrote a book later on toward the end of his life~a
book of confessions where he confessed many of his earlier errors from whence he was converted from. I must go back and refresh my memory of what all he recanted, and I'm sure like all of God's elect, they believe differently on many doctrines than when they first begin to learn the scriptures. He did spiritualize (or, gave an allegorical meaning to Genesis 1,2 even though he STILL held to God creating all things) Genesis more than I would feel comfortable in doing so, in his early life as a teacher of the word of God.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.
Well, you have for all practical purposes tossed out your bible in favor of following men who think they are wise and have gone against 99% Christians of the past.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.
You're wrong. We stand upon the testimony of the word of God BY FAITH~just as the Holy Ghost said here:
: The Holy Ghost Hebrews 11:3~Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
It is BY FAITH,
not through science-SO CALLED~God's word alone is the origin of true science, what science is added to this MUST agree with God's testimony which we receive by faith~for NO man has even begun to search out the INFINITE power, wisdom and knowledge of God it is past our ability to do so.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06If they praise him for the wonder of his creation, that is entirely a good thing. Knowing more about it, does indeed amplify one's faith.
That's BS~faith cometh by
hearing and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD, not through science-so called~it will destroy one child like faith, and puff up their vain minds.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06The evidence makes it true. After all, there were (and still are to a degree) YE creationists who said that black people were inferior to other people, and this was a demonstration of God's will.
The ONLY people that I have ever heard say such a stupid thing are your cousins the
atheist, and they would quickly tell you that the reason they are black is that they were born and lived so close to the equator~Yet I would always remind them that if the blacks lived in the north pole black people marrying each other would have black babies...always~ and THAT 's OKAY, I have four grandchildren that are half black and they certainly are NOT inferior to other people.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06And if you take what you see and understand, that is laudable. On the other hand, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research used his faulty ideas of creationism, to assert the inferiority of black people. That wasn't so good.
AGAIN, your cousins do that, I KNOW, my stepfather-in-law does that very thing and really think that the blacks come from apes~now he's highly intelligent as far as the world judges IQ but he just about as dumb as a telephone pole when it comes to any spiritual light whatsoever. I have listened to his stupidity out of respect when I was younger, but no more, even though he attempts to bring these things up from time to time. DO not blame creationist per Genesis 1,2 on everything.... receive the blame from your own camp where spiritual stupidity belongs and where it truly reigns.
: The Barbarian Reply #2821 on: Yesterday at 16:06:06 I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
BY FAITH we DO! You ONLY experience it (if you do, God Knows) to the degree you THINK you understand it~I do not even labor to try to figure out his work in creation, for it is so far above my ability to even think and reason~I just SEE and bless him that I know him that has power beyond my ability to comprehend and BY FAITH I receive his testimony that he said LET THERE BE and
and it happened instantly and perfectly JUST AS HE WILLED IT TO BE.
: RB Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 04:10:35It is BY FAITH, not through science-SO CALLED~God's word alone is the origin of true science, what science is added to this MUST agree with God's testimony which we receive by faith
I have no idea of what you are even thinking with that. What, precisely, is God's testimony which you have received by faith about electromagnetism? Or gravity? Or the aerodynamics of flight? Or radiation? Or.......?
God is the origin of true science. I believe that to be a fact. But also the fact is that God's word actually does nothing at all in revealing true science. If that were actually the case, there would be no need whatsoever of engaging in any science or engineering studies; all that would be necessary would be to study God's word. But of course we know that is not true.
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 04:57:53God is the origin of true science.
And his word is the testimony about how this earth, sun and the moon and all worlds were created.
: 4WD Reply #2832 on: Today at 04:57:53What, precisely, is God's testimony which you have received by faith about electromagnetism? Or gravity? Or the aerodynamics of flight? Or radiation? Or.......?
The studying those things how God instituted the working of those things are wonderful, seeing how everything works perfectly according to God's design of them for our life on this earth which he made to be inhabited. They just DID NOT happen by chance, or slowly over many millions of years to where we are now. That's all that we are contending for~nothing more.
: RB Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 06:44:04And his word is the testimony about how this earth, sun and the moon and all worlds were created.
No, it doesn't. You may interpret that way, but that is incorrect.
: Michael2012 Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 03:09:01
If you're a YE creationist, you aren't following scriptures.Barbarian observes:
Nope. Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
On one side, the evidence convinced them of an old Earth and evolution. On the other side, the visions of an Adventist "prophetess" led them to the new doctrine of YE creationism.Barbarian observes:
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.I'm sure you believe it. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency of you asserting that and owning a computer.
Please don't bring me the YE creationist thing. I am not. I am simply a Christian who takes God at His word, take it only as far as what is said in scriptures.
Whether you are a YE or OE creationist is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
In both cases the proponents are creationists and not evolutionists.
It has been attempted in this thread to make YE Creationism something to ridicule.
YE Creationists apparently are Bible thumping extremists.
You are now being pushed in that category because you are considered fundamental, and modern science doesn't like fundamentalism.
To believe in evolution requires an open mind, in particular when it comes to water down on what scripture says.
OE Creationists are better discussion partners because they already have taken a step towards modern science by adopting at least parts of scientific research that is seemingly in contradiction with scripture. They are creationists who are further down the road of enlightenment as far as science is concerned.
I consider myself a YE Creationist and I have absolutely no problem to believe in a literal 6 day creation.
I believe the Bible is right and I believe evolutionary science is utterly wrong.
But whether I am a YE or OE Creationist has nothing to do with the discussion if evolution is fact or fiction.
Equally you don't have to defend yourself when you are being labelled with either classification.
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 07:16:31No, it doesn't. You may interpret that way, but that is incorrect.
Okay, then SCIENCE has molded your thinking MORE than God's testimony, pure and simple.
: 4WD Reply #2834 on: Today at 07:16:31No, it doesn't. You may interpret that way, but that is incorrect.
It is NOT my interpretation, but simply believing Genesis 1 where it reads: God created...The Spirit of God moved...God divided...God said...God saw.....God blessed...God called...God made....
over thirty times! Over what men who think they are wiser than the scriptures, who teach others that it this; no, it that; no, we think it was in this manner; from where we we came from, to where we are now~and God's is NEVER given the glory (actually very seldom mentioned) of creating everything JUST AS IT IS NOW, when he first created man from the dust of the earth, and a woman from the rib of man...Do you believe that record recorded in the scriptures? How was the man created? tell me..how about the woman? Did God create the great whales as they ARE NOW? How about the cattle? Does everthing produce after ITS OWN KIND based on God's testimony?
: AVZ Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 08:13:27Whether you are a YE or OE creationist is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
In both cases the proponents are creationists and not evolutionists.
Not true.
: RB Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 08:45:52
Okay, then SCIENCE has molded your thinking MORE than God's testimony, pure and simple. It is NOT my interpretation, but simply believing Genesis 1 where it reads: God created...The Spirit of God moved...God divided...God said...God saw.....God blessed...God called...God made....over thirty times! Over what men who think they are wiser than the scriptures, who teach others that it this; no, it that; no, we think it was in this manner; from where we we came from, to where we are now~and God's is NEVER given the glory (actually very seldom mentioned) of creating everything JUST AS IT IS NOW, when he first created man from the dust of the earth, and a woman from the rib of man...Do you believe that record recorded in the scriptures? How was the man created? tell me..how about the woman? Did God create the great whales as they ARE NOW? How about the cattle? Does everthing produce after ITS OWN KIND based on God's testimony?
God said, "let there be light". It doesn't say, "God created light" There is a difference. I think God understood the difference. I think He intended the difference. You do not. God didn't create man from the dust of the earth. It says, "the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground". There is a difference. I think God understood the difference. I think He intended the difference. You do not. So much for you complaint about men who think they are wiser than the scriptures. RB, that is you.
: AVZ Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 08:13:27
Whether you are a YE or OE creationist is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
In both cases the proponents are creationists and not evolutionists.
It has been attempted in this thread to make YE Creationism something to ridicule.
YE Creationists apparently are Bible thumping extremists.
You are now being pushed in that category because you are considered fundamental, and modern science doesn't like fundamentalism.
To believe in evolution requires an open mind, in particular when it comes to water down on what scripture says.
OE Creationists are better discussion partners because they already have taken a step towards modern science by adopting at least parts of scientific research that is seemingly in contradiction with scripture. They are creationists who are further down the road of enlightenment as far as science is concerned.
I consider myself a YE Creationist and I have absolutely no problem to believe in a literal 6 day creation.
I believe the Bible is right and I believe evolutionary science is utterly wrong.
But whether I am a YE or OE Creationist has nothing to do with the discussion if evolution is fact or fiction.
Equally you don't have to defend yourself when you are being labelled with either classification.
I agree that whether you are a YE or OE creationist is totally irrelevant to the discussion. But Barbarian, despite indirectly telling him that, he keeps pushing and in reply always brings up the YE creationist as if that is relevant.
In fact, I made this comment:
The point being is that both camps believe that God created everything. But then, because of their science, they are divided. And that's sad. There's only one way to settle the division, let go of science and their scientific minds, and hold on to their heart and conscience, and to the revelation of God.Whether they admit it or not, the two camps are united in the truth that God is the creator of all things, but are divided, because of science. That is the problem, so it appears, when one tries to understand the spiritual things of God in scriptures by some other means other than by the Spirit.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, there are forms of OE creationism that are not at odds with scripture. The actual evidence doesn't support them, but they aren't directly in conflict with God's word, as YE creationism is.
Sir, YE creationism is NOT in conflict with the word of God
It is. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is opposed to God's word in Genesis.
YOU and your evolutionist friends ARE~and you more so than others.
As you see, evolution is completely consistent with scripture. As are some kinds of OE creationism. The difference is the evidence that shows evolution to be a fact.
(slaim that a literal reading of Genesis was denied only by science)
Barbarian obsrves:
Early Christians like Augustine, for example, rejected a literal revision of Genesis, based on the text itself.
The man of God also wrote a book later on toward the end of his life~a book of confessions where he confessed many of his earlier errors from whence he was converted from.
As you might know, he never recanted that opinion. Nor did anyone in Christendom argue with him about it. At the time, few people thought Genesis was entirely literal.
He did spiritualize (or, gave an allegorical meaning to Genesis 1,2 even though he STILL held to God creating all things)
He tried several times when he was younger to make a literal reading of Genesis. As an old man, he finally accepted that it could not be literal, from the text, itself. He was about 60 when he finished his work on Genesis, so it seems that his mature opinion was that it wasn't a literal history.
Both goes beyond what is written and revealed in scriptures concerning the creation work and creative power of God. Both ought to stick to what is revealed in scriptures, and not go beyond that.
Barbarian observes:
If you actually believe that, you should toss out your computer.
Well, you have for all practical purposes tossed out your bible
I'm just pointing out that the Bible is entirely consistent with evolution. You seem to think on one hand, things we know from science should be used, even if they aren't in scripture, and on the other hand, you think certain other things we know from science should be tossed out if they aren't in scripture. You're not very consistent in your thinking.
How can a finite fallible mind such as man, with definiteness and with all certainty, be able to know the HOWs of the miracles of the infinite infallible God?
Barbarian observes:
And yet YE creationists claim exactly that.
You're wrong.
No, YE is wrong to make such claims.
(explains what YE people say)
We stand upon the testimony of the word of God BY FAITH~just as the Holy Ghost said here:
Quote from: The Holy Ghost
Hebrews 11:3~Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
You believe in your computer by faith.
It is BY FAITH, not through science-SO CALLED
You've been misled about that. Even your YE creationist websites have backed off on that one:
Now what did Paul mean by "science"? The Greek word gnosis means "knowledge" in a general sense, not in the technical sense we use the word "science" today. Greek expert W. E. Vine explains that "science in the modern sense of the word, viz, the investigation, discovery and classification of secondary laws, is unknown in Scripture."
https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/science-so-called/
Science, as it is known today, is just a method. Like plumbing.
Barbarian suggests:
Let's see what God says...
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
That's BS
It's God's word.
Barbarian observes:
The evidence makes it true. After all, there were (and still are to a degree) YE creationists who said that black people were inferior to other people, and this was a demonstration of God's will.
The ONLY people that I have ever heard say such a stupid thing are your cousins the atheist,
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, founder and director of the Institute for Creation Research,
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:
and they would quickly tell you that the reason they are black is that they were born and lived so close to the equator
You believe that? Seriously? What about dark-skinned people living near the North Pole? What about light-skinned arabs living near the equator? C'mon. It has to do with weather and sunlight, not the equator.
Barbarian observes:
And if you take what you see and understand, that is laudable. On the other hand, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research used his faulty ideas of creationism, to assert the inferiority of black people. That wasn't so good.
AGAIN, your cousins do that
See above. It would be very hard to find a racist evolutionist, since the theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, Henry Morris, had no conflict between his creationist views and his racist views. IT's why evolutionary theory is under attack precisely in those areas where racism has been most prevalent.
Barbarian observes:
I truly feel sorry for the believer who does not experience awe and joy in His creation. Listen to what He's saying to you in Psalms, and learn from it.
BY FAITH we DO!
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Set aside the man-made doctrines of YE creationism, and just accept His creation as it is.
"God is the origin of true science."
Is that so? And what is "true science"?
Is science man-made or is it God-given?
Isn't science the fruit of man's labor?
It never crossed my mind that science originated from God.
: AVZ Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 21:55:46
The suggestion in this thread then would be something like God showed Moses how man evolved from apes, and Moses, from his point of view, wrote that Adam fell asleep and God took one of his ribs to create Eve.
The length of time it took to create our universe is not necessarily relevant to the question whether everything was a direct creation, or things came to be through evolution.
I have a hard time reconciling that myself, and as such I am not a believer in evolution, yet still much smarter folks than I have managed to reconcile these events. Further, we can not really be sure what God might have shown Moses in this scenario, but it may have been greatly abbreviated, time lapsed perhaps, and Moses would have to condense these observations even further, conveying them into a few hundred words of verse.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, however God did it, I am fine with that.
And that rib thing sounds an awful lot like cloning to me. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)
(http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/I-am-not-saying.jpg)
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 07:16:31Quote from: RB on Today at 06:44:04
And his word is the testimony about how this earth, sun and the moon and all worlds were created.
No, it doesn't. You may interpret that way, but that is incorrect.
Yes, it is. You only can't accept His word on that. And that's apparently because there are these scientific theories which evidently you accept as true, and taking it to be HOW God created the earth and mankind.
God had spoken about creation, and were written in scriptures. He had revealed it to the man who wrote scriptures, specially Genesis 1,2. And such scriptures carries with them, in relation to all things that exist including mankind, a simple message to the chosen people of God - that He is the creator of all, and that by the power of His word. That is the message of those scriptures then concerning creation, and that is the message today. For God's message written out in scriptures does not change.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, however God did it, I am fine with that.
::clappingoverhead::
: Carey Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 09:46:56
I don't really have a dog in this fight, however God did it, I am fine with that.
+1
That is the ONLY acceptable answer as far as I'm concerned, many can assert they know exactly the intent of the writer of Genesis but that is simply untrue and cannot be proven one way or the other.
: Alan Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:25:58
+1
That is the ONLY acceptable answer as far as I'm concerned, many can assert they know exactly the intent of the writer of Genesis but that is simply untrue and cannot be proven one way or the other.
All I know is I was created by God as human and some on here are related to Chimps.
: Texas Conservative Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:32:28
All I know is I was created by God as human and some on here are related to Chimps.
If some are related,
all are related and vice versa.
: Alan Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:45:51
If some are related, all are related and vice versa.
Naw. I must be a higher form of human than the chimp related folks.
Can you doubt???
Look at the resemblance with me.......
I must have gotten my hair color gene from this one... AS WELL AS our shared
hairstyle with POTUS ::nodding::
And TC.... NOPE you are not a higher form... but I shall let it go at that
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2d2fqu.jpg)
: Ginger Rella Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 11:10:39
Can you doubt???
Look at the resemblance with me.......
I must have gotten my hair color gene from this one... AS WELL AS our shared
hairstyle with POTUS ::nodding::
And TC.... NOPE you are not a higher form... but I shall let it go at that
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2d2fqu.jpg)
I am not related to chimps. But you are?
: Texas Conservative Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 11:26:23
I am not related to chimps. But you are?
How can I fight evidence like this. This has to be a distant relative... pre Neanderthal roots... cause look at the hair on his head and the hair style...
It is growing exactly like Trumps.... and mine LOL
would that I could be related to POTUS.
Be still my heart
Genetic data makes it pretty clear. And of course, we can check it by looking at genes of organisms of known descent.
: Texas Conservative Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:32:28
All I know is I was created by God
No you were created by God as anything. You were begotten by your parents as a human being. That you do not understand the difference says it all.
: Michael2012 Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:07:34
For God's message written out in scriptures does not change.
That much of what you said is true. But that is about all that you have said that is true. God's message written out in Scripture concerning the sun, moon and stars is,
Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
Gen 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. There is not a single statement there about God creating anything.
: Michael2012 Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 09:35:28It never crossed my mind that science originated from God.
That certainly doesn't surprise me in the least. But in truth, science is discovered not invented.
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 15:08:33
No you were created by God as anything. You were begotten by your parents as a human being. That you do not understand the difference says it all.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
: Texas Conservative Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 15:20:28
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
It 's good to see you laugh at yourself.
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 15:13:37
Gen 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
There is not a single statement there about God creating anything.
Ummmm. Wrong. By your own scripture God made says to me God created.
The same would be in Gen 1:26 when God said Let us make man i our..........
Making is creating ::nodding::
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 15:13:37Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 10:07:34
For God's message written out in scriptures does not change.
That much of what you said is true. But that is about all that you have said that is true. God's message written out in Scripture concerning the sun, moon and stars is,
Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
Gen 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
There is not a single statement there about God creating anything.
So, you are actually saying that you don't believe the following and take them as lies:
1. God had spoken about creation, and were written in scriptures.
2. He had revealed it to the man who wrote scriptures, specially Genesis 1,2.
3. And such scriptures carries with them, in relation to all things that exist including mankind, a simple message to the chosen people of God - that He is the creator of all, and that by the power of His word.
4. That is the message of those scriptures then concerning creation, and that is the message today.
Concerning the creation of all things and mankind, here's the testimony and truth in scriptures:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:21 So
God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So
God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which
God had created and made .
Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when
they were created, in the day that
the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And here's more in scriptures after Genesis 1,2
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that
God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
Genesis 5:2
He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day
they were created.
Deuteronomy 4:32 "For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that
God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard.
Psalm 148:4-5
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
For
He commanded and they were created.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says
God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:
Ephesians 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in
God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Colossians 1:16 For
by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through Him and for Him.
Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You
created all things, And by Your will
they exist and were created."
Revelation 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever,
who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,
: Michael2012 Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 23:05:09
Concerning the creation of all things and mankind, here's the testimony and truth in scriptures:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made .
Genesis 2:4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And here's more in scriptures after Genesis 1,2
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
Deuteronomy 4:32 "For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard.
Psalm 148:4-5
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
For He commanded and they were created.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:
Ephesians 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."
Revelation 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,
I think we are focusing on the wrong verb here.
Whether the word "make" or "create" is used is completely irrelevant because God
spoke things into existence.
All that was needed was a word...and it was so.
If you want to see the Creator at work, one should read the various healing miracles Jesus did.
Just by speaking He healed people. That is creative power!
For none of these "verbal creations" pre-existing material was a prerequisite.
It is as simple as depicted in Genesis: God said: let there be light...and there was light.
Jesus said: Take up your bed and walk...and the man stood up and walked
: Ginger Rella Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 18:03:00Making is creating ::nodding::
No it is not. And you cheapen the true meaning of God's creation when you equate God's making out of something with God's creating out of nothing.
There is the story of Satan arguing with God that he, Satan, could make a human being just as well as God. God accepted Satan's challenge. Satan reached down to grab a handful of dirt, at which, God said to Satan, "No you don't, you get your own dirt". That story is actually quite profound if you stop to think about it for a bit.
: Michael2012 Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 23:05:09
Concerning the creation of all things and mankind, here's the testimony and truth in scriptures:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Michael, what is it that you think was created in God's image? I would certainly hope you don't think it is the flesh, the physical body, of man that
God created in His own image. Rather it was/is the spirit of man that is in God's image. After all, God has no flesh, no physical body; therefore there can be no image of that. It is only the spirit of man that is created in God's image. That is further noted in Genesis 2:7.
And all the rest of the passages you posted must be interpreted and considered in that light.
As I just noted with Ginger, when you equate God's making or God's forming out of something with God's creating out of nothing, you cheapen the true greatness and majesty of God's creating.
: AVZ Wed Nov 07, 2018 - 00:10:45I think we are focusing on the wrong verb here.
Whether the word "make" or "create" is used is completely irrelevant .......
Only in the minds of little men. God's choice of words is never irrelevant.
: Alan Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 07:14:20
Then what would the purpose of giving us the sun and the moon actually be? If the attributes necessary to perfectly sustain life were created before these bodies were placed into our solar system then why are they there? Today we fully understand that our relative distance from the sun is the determining factor of our climate, did God pass the baton at some point to give us a source of light and heat?
You are making the faulty assumption that for a thing to exist, the source must exist as well.
In reality, for many things God created He "passed on the baton" later.
Fish in the oceans were created without these fish having a source from where they came from...and God passed on the baton to the fish to procreate
Plants were created without them having seeds from where they came from...and God passed on the baton to the plants to bear seeds.
Man was created without them having a source from where they came from...and God passed on the baton to mankind to reproduce.
Light without the sun is as much explainable as fish without eggs, trees without seeds and man without parents.
To pose the question that in order for light to exist, the sun must necessarily have existed before begs the question that therefore for wales to exist their parents must necessarily have existed before as well. Or trees, or plants, or man, or animals or whatever.
Take water for example.
Genesis writes there was water first, and after that God created the sun and the firmament.
And once all that was put together, there existed the water cycle.
So the system by which water is sustained was created after water.
For oxygen goes the same.
First there was oxygen without a source.
Then came the sun and the plants.
Once all that was put together, there existed the oxygen cycle.
The system by which oxygen is sustained was created after oxygen itself.
So why would you claim it is unreasonable to believe that the system by which light is sustained came after light itself?
I think some of you proponents of speciation in here not only believe in science, but hate all of the orphans in the whole world.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/1d/12/c91d123ae6a1470be401df51f0c4edc3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WdbOG9J.jpg)
: Texas Conservative Wed Nov 07, 2018 - 09:33:45I think some of you proponents of speciation in here not only believe in science, but hate all of the orphans in the whole world.
Why would you think that? Are you an orphan?
: 4WD Wed Nov 07, 2018 - 04:54:48
Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 23:05:09
Concerning the creation of all things and mankind, here's the testimony and truth in scriptures:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Michael, what is it that you think was created in God's image? I would certainly hope you don't think it is the flesh, the physical body, of man that God created in His own image. Rather it was/is the spirit of man that is in God's image. After all, God has no flesh, no physical body; therefore there can be no image of that. It is only the spirit of man that is created in God's image. That is further noted in Genesis 2:7.
Clearly, the verse says "God created
man in His own image".
To say that only the spirit of man is that which God created in His image clearly alters what the scriptures so clearly says. What God created is not only physical body and not only spirit, but is man.
You argue that God is Spirit and has no flesh, no physical body, that there can be no image of that. Following you line of thinking, in quite similar sense, the spirit of man is no image as well. How can a spirit be an image of an invisible Spirit? An image of God, is and should be a visible representation of the invisible God.
Are you still wondering what man is like as created by God in His image? I believe and expect that all Christians knows that.
: 4WD Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 15:15:48Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 09:35:28
It never crossed my mind that science originated from God.
That certainly doesn't surprise me in the least. But in truth, science is discovered not invented.
From wikipedia:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][a]
[1] Harper, Douglas. "science". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
[2] Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York, New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 0-679-76867-X.
[a] "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— Heilbron 2003, p. vii
"science". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena."scientific method", by the term itself, is a method, which was invented by man.
Discovery is one thing, and invention is another.
Science, neither as discovery nor as invention originates from God.
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 04:11:25Science, neither as discovery nor as invention originates from God.
The physical world originates from God. He established all the laws of nature the study of which constitutes science. So far as I am concerned, any truth coming from such study thus originates with God. The scientific method is itself not science; but rather the systematic means by which science is discovered through observation and experimentation. And that basically is what the definition you posted from Webster's dictionary said. You apparently didn't read and study what you posted very well.
: 4WD Mon Nov 05, 2018 - 04:40:22
Hey Michael, go back to my reply #2793 to RB concerning evening and morning. I doubt that RB will try to answer my question, but perhaps you could step in for him. What is God's message there concerning evening and morning? What does it mean there was evening and morning when there wasn't a sun or a moon yet?
: RB Tue Nov 06, 2018 - 03:06:48
Brother Michael please give your input, it is more than welcome.
: 4WD Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 17:14:55
Quote from: RB on Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 15:47:19
When one chooses not to believe the record of Genesis 1,2, and allow men of this world to form their understanding of creation instead of believing the testimony of God is the sad state in which the professing church has apostatized to.
So perhaps you could tell us what you think is the meaning of "And there was evening and there was morning, one day", when until day four there is neither sun nor moon. What is evening and morning without the sun. What is it, specifically, that you think God is telling you?
This is my reading of days of creation.
Let's consider the first day:
Genesis 1:3-5
3 Then 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 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Obviously there was no light yet, when God said "Let there be light". This also suggest that what was there before God created light, is darkness. What light do you think was that? Well, the verse says that God called the light Day. And the darkness God called Night.
After that, it is said, "So the evening and the morning were the first day". The evening could be no other but that which God called night and the morning as that which God called day. There was darkness (night/evening) and then the light (day/morning). That is what is described to be what the first "day" was.
And we have that follows, "So the evening and the morning were the second day", "So the evening and the morning were the third day".
Lets' now consider the 4th day.
Genesis 1:14-18
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then 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 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on 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 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
God had lights be in the firmament of the heavens. This suggest that the light created by God in the first day was different from what He created here on the fourth day. These lights, unlike that on the first day, were to divide the day from the night, to be for signs and seasons, and for days and years. These lights in the firmament of the heavens, were created specifically to give light on the earth.
Is the length of time of the first day, the same as that of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th day?
Nothing suggest that they are not the same. For in each day, it says "So the evening and the morning were" as it was since the first day.
Is the day, a day as we experience it or representative of billions of years?
Whether on the first to the 3rd day, there was not yet the sun, moon and stars, that does not change what a day is, that is, defined as being the length of time it takes for the passing of evening and morning, or of night and day, or of darkness and light.
There is reason to take the day here as what the writer knew what a day is, than for it to be taken to represent a different length of time such as billions of years. God even had spoken here of days and years in verse 14, referring to different time durations, according to what a day and a year is to the inspired writer then. The writer would have a problem with this portion, as later he writes of this creation time, "So the evening and the morning were the fourth day", if he meant a day to be some billion years.
The day spoken in each of the 6 days was defined by God as the passing of the evening and the morning, the turning around from darkness into light.
Taking the day as being that amount of time the writer experience the passing of the evening and the morning, as far as I see it, presents no problem to the faithful Christian, except to those who believe in the scientific TOE. And we all know what that is like, as from ancient times mankind (Christians or not) had experienced it.
Taking the day spoken in each of the 6 creation days of Genesis as to be billions of years, as far as I see it, if not problems, questions arises such as the following, among others:
1. The phrase "So the evening and the morning were the ___ day" would not make much sense. What does it mean then?
2. Each of the days represents equal length of time. How many billion/million years does the day represents?
3. Each day is stated as somewhat a cycle of the passing of darkness and light. How do you explain that?
4. Each day is numbered, as in the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day......6th day. Each day is distinct from the other. Each day has a starting point, as well as and end point. Can you tell what starts a day (billion years) and what ends it?
5. After the 6th day comes the 7th day, wherein scriptures says "And on the seventh day GOD ENDED HIS WORK which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. What does that make of the 7th day?
: 4WD Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 04:29:52Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 04:11:25
Science, neither as discovery nor as invention originates from God.
The physical world originates from God. He established all the laws of nature the study of which constitutes science. So far as I am concerned, any truth coming from such study thus originates with God. The scientific method is itself not science; but rather the systematic means by which science is discovered through observation and experimentation. And that basically is what the definition you posted from Webster's dictionary said. You apparently didn't read and study what you posted very well.
No sir, the physical world did not originate from God. Rather it was created and fashioned by God.
It seems then that you reject this:
[a] "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— Heilbron 2003, p. vii
You agree with:
"science". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge
or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially
as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
While Merriam-Webster Dictionary says of it as knowledge, it speaks of it as a system. Further it qualifies such as obtained and tested through scientific method.
"scientific method", by the term itself, is a method, which was invented by man.
You said "So far as I am concerned, any truth coming from such study thus originates with God."
If it's the truth, I'd agree that such knowledge came from God. Otherwise, it is not. And we know, all truth comes from God. But you and I know who has the truth, knows the truth, and is the truth. If at all one wants to know the truth, the Christian knows where to begin and look. Definitely not through man-made scientific means.
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 10:43:23
..... the physical world did not originate from God. Rather it was created and fashioned by God.
Seriously? Please do explain ???
: Michael2012 Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 10:43:23
The physical world originates from God. He established all the laws of nature the study of which constitutes science. So far as I am concerned, any truth coming from such study thus originates with God. The scientific method is itself not science; but rather the systematic means by which science is discovered through observation and experimentation. And that basically is what the definition you posted from Webster's dictionary said. You apparently didn't read and study what you posted very well.
No sir, the physical world did not originate from God. Rather it was created and fashioned by God.
It seems then that you reject this:
[a] "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— Heilbron 2003, p. vii
You agree with:
"science". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
While Merriam-Webster Dictionary says of it as knowledge, it speaks of it as a system. Further it qualifies such as obtained and tested through scientific method.
"scientific method", by the term itself, is a method, which was invented by man.
You said "So far as I am concerned, any truth coming from such study thus originates with God." If it's the truth, I'd agree that such knowledge came from God. Otherwise, it is not. And we know, all truth comes from God. But you and I know who has the truth, knows the truth, and is the truth. If at all one wants to know the truth, the Christian knows where to begin and look. Definitely not through man-made scientific means.
Of course science is invented by man, because it is man who determines what is scientific and what is not.
You have been given the misleading interpretation that everything that studies the laws of nature is science.
This is not so because studies of philosophy and history, which have nothing to do with the laws of nature, are also considered scientific.
Yet those who attempt to study the driving force behind those laws of nature, i.e. God, and submit that God can be discovered in nature, are dismissed as unscientific.
It is man who determines what is science, and its also man who defines which discoveries are to be included and which not.
Hence science is a human invention.
Of course science is invented by man, because it is man who determines what is scientific and what is not.
You have been given the misleading interpretation that everything that studies the laws of nature is science.
This is not so because studies of philosophy and history, which have nothing to do with the laws of nature, are also considered scientific.
In fact, neither of those are sciences, although they can use scientific discoveries to illuminate problems in philosophy or history.
: Alan Thu Nov 08, 2018 - 10:57:35
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 10:43:23
..... the physical world did not originate from God. Rather it was created and fashioned by God.
Seriously? Please do explain ???
Obviously my second statement would have the word "originate" not to be taken to mean in the sense of being created or brought to existence, but be taken in the sense of springing out or proceeding forth as from a parent.
The physical world originated from out of nothing.
: Alan Sun Nov 04, 2018 - 10:07:08
The words were given for us to observe the physical aspects of nature, it's a progression that we can witness as the mystery is further revealed to us with each new discovery. The words were never designed to be a paint by numbers for simpletons that cannot grasp critical thought processes.
Ah yes, all creationists are simpletons. Nothing bias about that statement. To the contrary, "Christian evolutionists" just choose to be critical of God's word, while creationists choose to be critical of fallen humanities faulty observations and misguided reasonings. They refuse the guidance of the word of God, so they are left with a god of their own creation.
Isa 2:8
Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: 9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. 10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty. 11
The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. 12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low: 13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan, 14 And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up, 15 And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall, 16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures. 17
And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. 18 And the idols he shall utterly abolish. 19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. 20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold,
which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; 21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. 22
Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?Repent! Cease ye from the intellectual idols of fallen humanity, and worship the God revealed in scripture. Turn from the god of your own and fallen humanities creation, to the God of creation as revealed to humanity through His chosen servants. Humble yourself before the word of God, be critical of your own faulty thinking and reasoning, not of God's word. Lest you perish with the idol of your own creation, rather than be saved by the God of creation.
Jer 13:8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem. 10
This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle,
which is good for nothing.Stop worshiping the god of your own imagination, and worship the God revealed to us In His word. Why will you become as nothing by rejecting God's word, in favor of your own imaginings?
Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice,
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.Judgment is coming. Submit to the word of God, and flee from the pride of fallen humanities misguided and evil understanding.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=134282
The article the following quotes were taken from, may be viewed at the above link. All emphasis in the quotes is mine.
Research team discovers plant fossils previously unknown to Antarctica
NSF-funded team also finds the second prehistoric fossil forest discovered on the continent
.................................................
Sometime about 220 million years ago, a meandering stream flowed here and plants grew along its banks. Something, as yet unknown, caused sediment to flood the area rapidly, which helped preserve the plants. Gulbranson splits open a grey slab of siltstone in the quarry to reveal amazingly well-preserved Triassic plant fossils, as if the leaves and stems had been freshly pressed into the rock only yesterday.......................
"It's a mixture of plants that don't exist anymore," he says, "but we have some plants in these fossil ecosystems that we might know today, like ginkgo."
On the one end are fossils from an extinct genus of fork-leaved seed ferns called Dicroidium that dominated during the Triassic, a geologic period that lasted from about 252 to 200 million years ago. Other plants frozen in time on this remote hillside include species in the extant cycad family, which today favor subtropical and tropical climates.
Even better are the fossilized specimens no one can yet identify..............
Also new to Antarctica: A Triassic-age fossil forest of 37 tree stumps, located less than a couple of kilometers almost directly south from the quarry. These were discovered about a week after Gulbranson and a team of paleontology experts in plants, fungi and other areas arrived at Allan Hills by helicopter and Twin Otter aircraft.
It is only the second fossil forest from the Triassic ever found in Antarctica. It's about a third the size of a site in Gordon Valley near the Beardmore Glacier in the Transantarctic Mountains. The Gordon Valley fossil forest, discovered in 2003, contains 99 preserved seed-fern tree trunks. The trees are estimated to have grown about 20 meters in height along what were likely the banks of an ancient river system.
The newly discovered Allan Hills fossil forest, at the base of the 1,800-meter-high Roscolyn Tor, represents the second largest fossil forest in Antarctica, according to Gulbranson. About a dozen fossil forests have been found from an even earlier time period called the Permian, which extends roughly between 298 and 252 million years ago.
"It's an important find," said Gulbranson, whose expertise as a sedimentologist and geochemist allows him to reconstruct the environment that existed when these trees, shrubs and forests flourished. He does this by using various techniques, including grinding down small samples of the fossil growth rings to see variations in how the ancient flora once grew.[size]
Surprise surprise, scientists find yet more fossils preserved by flood conditions. Notice how the article tried not to say that, when they said that.
Something, as yet unknown, caused sediment to flood the area rapidly, which helped preserve the plants.
Though those conditions are only specified concerning the first find addressed above, it is no doubt the case concerning all of them. If we remove the completely bogus and unverifiable time frames manipulated into existence by scientists of the evolutionary faith according to circular reasoning, we find evidence which backs up once again, the biblical account of our history.
What are the observable facts before us? Antarctica was not always an ice desert. It once had forests, even most likely tropical forests. Plant and animal fossils are found buried in sediment likely deposited in flood conditions rapidly burying and therefore preserving what are now fossils. The same conditions we find everywhere else in the world concerning the vast majority of fossils. All of course fully supporting the biblical account of our history.
Removing the manipulated time frames imposed by those of the evolutionary faith, we have plants that no longer exist, and plants that still exist. This suggesting a greater variety of plant life in the past assuming the time frames applied by those of the evolutionary faith are in fact a figment of their imaginations conveniently applied in accordance with that faith. This again is highly suggestive of a world filled with more variety and even much larger life forms, as much evidence clearly indicates. This world existing before what appears to be either a flood of global proportions, or seemingly endless smaller and more local floods burying and preserving a world superior to our own. All of which of course flies in the face of the supposed ever upward march depicted by those of the evolutionary faith. According to scripture the world has experienced devilution, not evolution. We are inferior to the pre-flood world, not superior to it.
If in fact there are millions of years between the existence of the plants and forests discovered in the fossil records of Antarctica, there should also be a major difference in the condition or preservation of these fossils as well. This doesn't seem to be the case, unless those of the evolutionary faith simply fail to point such out. Or perhaps as in the case of preserved dinosaur flesh, they do not believe that observable rates of decay today, may be applied to the artifacts of their faith. Whether ten or hundreds of millions of years old, they have faith that all has been preserved for the sake of their self proclaimed brilliance I suppose, in the observations and assumptions they have applied to the faith of their own creation. Therefore are they ever learning, but are never able to cone to a knowledge of the truth.
On the other hand, as a creationist, I am quite sure that the superior nature of the world and life in it prior to the flood, did and does effect rates of decay and preservation. To the effect no doubt, that accurate dating is not really possible, without extensive knowledge of just what all the differences were and are between the two worlds. According to scripture, this entire planet, all life on it, and even the atmosphere of it, were all radically changed by the flood. Even those of the evolutionary faith must and do readily admit of major differences over time concerning their self benefitting projection and conjectured time frames. Yet they still pretend they can accurately determine time frames concerning that which is unobservable, and unquestionably filled with endless variables they neither do or possibly can know about. So be it.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
The discovery of vegetation in Antarctica is nothing new, it's been well documented that the Continent had 40-50 degree temperatures as little as 40 million years ago.
Nothing to do with a global flood.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/antarctica-was-once-warm-sunny-california-180951195/
: Alan Sun Nov 25, 2018 - 10:43:33
The discovery of vegetation in Antarctica is nothing new, it's been well documented that the Continent had 40-50 degree temperatures as little as 40 million years ago.
Nothing to do with a global flood.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/antarctica-was-once-warm-sunny-california-180951195/
Everything to do with the global flood which created and provided the sediment that rapidly buried your precious fossils, and radically altered the face and conditions of this earth. You simply deny the testimony of the prophets of God in scripture, in favor of the prophets of your evolutionary faith according to the written words and testimony of Darwin and others of like mind.
You deny the obvious. God didn't create a universe equipped with deception, sadly that is where YEC's are themselves deceived.
It's exceedingly difficult to see how we move from a valueless series of causes and effects from the big bang onward, finally arriving at valuable, morally responsible, rights-bearing human beings. If we're just material beings produced by a material universe, then objective value or goodness (not to mention consciousness or reasoning powers or beauty or personhood) can't be accounted for. — Paul Copan (from, Passionate Conviction: Modern Discourses on Christian Apologetics)
Good thought NR.
It's exceedingly difficult to see how we move from a valueless series of causes and effects from the big bang onward, finally arriving at valuable, morally responsible, rights-bearing human beings.
You don't think God is capable of creating a world where such things happen? How so?
If we're just material beings produced by a material universe
Our bodies are. But our souls are given directly by God. So scripture says. Paul doesn't seem to agree with that.
Everything to do with the global flood which created and provided the sediment that rapidly buried your precious fossils, and radically altered the face and conditions of this earth.
That assumption is not supported by the evidence, or by scripture. It's just a modern revision men added to God's word, to make it more acceptable to them.
: The Barbarian Wed Nov 28, 2018 - 21:55:44
Our bodies are. But our souls are given directly by God. So scripture says.
Same scripture also says that Eve was created from a rib of Adam.
: notreligus Wed Nov 28, 2018 - 21:17:09
It's exceedingly difficult to see how we move from a valueless series of causes and effects from the big bang onward, finally arriving at valuable, morally responsible, rights-bearing human beings. If we're just material beings produced by a material universe, then objective value or goodness (not to mention consciousness or reasoning powers or beauty or personhood) can't be accounted for. — Paul Copan (from, Passionate Conviction: Modern Discourses on Christian Apologetics)
That's the literal Genesis, young earth partakers spin on the big bang. If God set the universe in motion 6,000 years ago, why couldn't He have done it 14 billion years ago? There is nothing in that paragraph that is remotely true concerning the age of the universe or evolution of species, the result is
exactly the same, just as God intended.
: Alan Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 06:08:14
That's the literal Genesis, young earth partakers spin on the big bang. If God set the universe in motion 6,000 years ago, why couldn't He have done it 14 billion years ago? There is nothing in that paragraph that is remotely true concerning the age of the universe or evolution of species, the result is exactly the same, just as God intended.
I fail to see why you have a beef with the statement.
It clearly starts with: "a valueless series of causes and effects from the big bang onward"
That expresses a materialistic origin of the universe.
Once you bring God into the picture, you no longer have a valueless series because if the universe was created for a purpose, then it has value.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of who spins what, but with the question how objective morals can exist if a moral law giver is absent.
: AVZ Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 07:00:27It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of who spins what, but with the question how objective morals can exist if a moral law giver is absent.
There is no one here who would posit the absence of a moral law giver. That is an absolute straw man and has nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
: AVZ Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 07:00:27
I fail to see why you have a beef with the statement.
It clearly starts with: "a valueless series of causes and effects from the big bang onward"
That expresses a materialistic origin of the universe.
Once you bring God into the picture, you no longer have a valueless series because if the universe was created for a purpose, than it has value.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of who spins what, but with the question how objective morals can exist if a moral law giver is absent.
You can talk big bang all you want.
This... "Once you bring God into the picture, you no longer have a valueless series because if the universe was created for a purpose, than it has value.'
is a profoundly accurate statement, kind of.
But what I do not understand it why so many of you have trouble with the concept that the creation of the universe can and is not necessarily tied in with the creation of life. Not using man here as that is for another day.
Why is it that most here cannot see the possibility that a long time ago in a galaxy far away God set about to create a planet.
That He did that possible with no plan in mind other then being able to create variety upon variety of all that is out there in space.
That He did that purely for His own enjoyment... and those angelic beings that are in heaven with Him.
That from a Spirit, who always was and always will be .. and I do not mean to sound flip about this... but creating the universe , one planet at a time, or one solar system at a time quite possibly could have been a hobby of His?
Did you never wonder why , through out what has been told to us about our creation, God made evening and morning the first, second, etc days?
Why start with evening?
I submit that it is possible that God had other things to do during the day.
Why is it that many here believe that all had to be totally created ... all the millions and billions of planets, stars and all else out there ... that all had to be created in the same 6 days.
Is it possible that if that were true, that these were not consecutive days. Yes, I believe God could well create, and did create each specific thing in its own 24 hour day., but are we assuming that it was all done in 1 week because of Gen 2-2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.?
There are those YE here who will say uncatagorically the holy bible tells it by the inspiration of God and we all must hold to whatever the holy book says.
I agree....
I could not agree more that the holy word... our rextbook, book of rules, and history book was given by inspiration for us. The Jewish people and the Christians
because we are fulfilling another... ( not the only) plan of God.
How arrogant must we be to think that in all of eternity past and future God decided to pick a 6,000 - 10,0000 or 13,000 drop in the time bucket to create all that we will never be able to see or enjoy, and then select earth as the place to grow us?
Placing the sun, during creation after earth was formed according to Gen 1-16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. , far enough away that it would not burn us, but close enough that we would not freeze... And strong enough to grow things, but go out of sight so we could sleep at night.
I see the likely possibility of Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters... stating a simple fact of God was in creation mode, and be it 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago, it does not matter.... it just is fact.
And at some point, for His personal reasons, we were made....
Scientists can continue to come up with "how it was done"... but util they can actually make life... not test tube or cloning... they will be wrong.
: The Barbarian Wed Nov 28, 2018 - 21:55:44
You don't think God is capable of creating a world where such things happen? How so?
Our bodies are. But our souls are given directly by God. So scripture says. Paul doesn't seem to agree with that.
I believe God can do whatever He desires. He spoke this world into existence. He didn't create it with a big burp.
I also know that it was not until the late 1800s that "enlightend" scientists and philosophers started to question the doctrine that the orthodox Christian church had taught from the beginning. There's nothing new here from you or Alan or 4WD. Same old nonsense that these Frenchies started years back.
You've shown here your ignorance about the body. Jesus Christ now has the eternal, "prototype" body that all believers will have. His body did not come from a tadpole or a monkey or a piece of blob. Our temporal bodies are His design and our new eternal bodies are His design. He is going to reign over a new heavens and a new Earth. Peter said that this world is going to be destroyed by fire. God Almighty said he'd never destroy the world with water again, so fire is next on His agenda. The great thing is we won't have to be insulted by esoterics in the New Kingdom. Those who were saved will have to confess that they were wrong. There's going to be some gnashing of teeth by many of us who thought we knew more than God.
I think you guys ought to be honest with others here at this forum and admit the truth that you think of yourselves as esoterics. I've read enough condescending posts to know that to be the case.
: 4WD Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 08:27:37
There is no one here who would posit the absence of a moral law giver. That is an absolute straw man and has nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
Exactly, we have said over and over again that it was God that set things in motion.
: AVZ Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 07:00:27
Once you bring God into the picture, you no longer have a valueless series because if the universe was created for a purpose, then it has value.
Yep, that is why we all say that God was in the picture from the beginning, we haven't added God to our belief, we believe that it was God in the beginning. Not sure why you think otherwise.
I believe God can do whatever He desires.
Then why not just accept it His way?
He spoke this world into existence.
Specifically, He said "Let there be light." Guess what the first thing was in the Big Bang. Yep.
I also know that it was not until the late 1800s that "enlightend" scientists and philosophers started to question the doctrine that the orthodox Christian church had taught from the beginning.
The Church never actually settled the doctrine as to Genesis being historical or figurative. Most early Christians accepted it the way St. Augustine did, that it was figurative, not a literal history. But you're wrong about it being orthodoxy. You can deny the figurative nature of Genesis and still be an orthodox Christian.
You've shown here your ignorance about the body. Jesus Christ now has the eternal, "prototype" body that all believers will have.
Show us your scriptural evidence that it's a prototype. And as you have learned, we get our bodies naturally, by natural processes.
Those who were saved will have to confess that they were wrong.
No, that's just another doctrine someone made up and added to scripture. God won't send you to hell for being a creationist. He doesn't care if you like the way He did it or if you don't. That's not what your salvation depends on.
There's going to be some gnashing of teeth by many of us who thought we knew more than God.
You can relax. He's not going to refuse you for being a creationist.
I think you guys ought to be honest with others here at this forum and admit the truth that you think of yourselves as esoterics.
"Esoteric" is an adjective, not a noun. You don't need that highfalutin stuff. Just come to Him like a little child. Let it be his way, not your new way. There's nothing esoteric about the Bible. Just read it, without your modern revisions. Anyone can do that.
I've read enough condescending posts to know that to be the case.
If you go telling people about things you don't understand, you're likely to be corrected. That's how it is.
: Alan Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 14:20:46
Yep, that is why we all say that God was in the picture from the beginning, we haven't added God to our belief, we believe that it was God in the beginning. Not sure why you think otherwise.
I am not thinking otherwise, nor am I saying you do.
Notreligious made a statement that imo has nothing to with the issue at hand.
Both you and I agree with the argument made by him, and the core question remains the same whether you are an evolutionist, old earth creationist or young earth creationist.
Your response to Notreligious' post however surprises me because you claim it is a "young earth partakers spin on the big bang", which is neither true nor relevant.
Hence my question why you have a beef with the statement?
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 14:41:01
He spoke this world into existence.
Specifically, He said "Let there be light." Guess what the first thing was in the Big Bang. Yep.
The big difference is, the former is infallible truth in scriptures, the latter is a fallible scientific theory. The former is God's words, the latter is man's (scientists's) words. The former is of God's wisdom, the latter is of man's (scientists') wisdom. The former is taken by faith, the latter is taken by scientific works.
: Ginger Rella Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 09:27:20
You can talk big bang all you want.
This... "Once you bring God into the picture, you no longer have a valueless series because if the universe was created for a purpose, than it has value.'
is a profoundly accurate statement, kind of.
But what I do not understand it why so many of you have trouble with the concept that the creation of the universe can and is not necessarily tied in with the creation of life. Not using man here as that is for another day.
Why is it that most here cannot see the possibility that a long time ago in a galaxy far away God set about to create a planet.
That He did that possible with no plan in mind other then being able to create variety upon variety of all that is out there in space.
That He did that purely for His own enjoyment... and those angelic beings that are in heaven with Him.
That from a Spirit, who always was and always will be .. and I do not mean to sound flip about this... but creating the universe , one planet at a time, or one solar system at a time quite possibly could have been a hobby of His?
Did you never wonder why , through out what has been told to us about our creation, God made evening and morning the first, second, etc days?
Why start with evening?
I submit that it is possible that God had other things to do during the day.
Why is it that many here believe that all had to be totally created ... all the millions and billions of planets, stars and all else out there ... that all had to be created in the same 6 days.
Is it possible that if that were true, that these were not consecutive days. Yes, I believe God could well create, and did create each specific thing in its own 24 hour day., but are we assuming that it was all done in 1 week because of Gen 2-2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.?
There are those YE here who will say uncatagorically the holy bible tells it by the inspiration of God and we all must hold to whatever the holy book says.
I agree....
I could not agree more that the holy word... our rextbook, book of rules, and history book was given by inspiration for us. The Jewish people and the Christians
because we are fulfilling another... ( not the only) plan of God.
How arrogant must we be to think that in all of eternity past and future God decided to pick a 6,000 - 10,0000 or 13,000 drop in the time bucket to create all that we will never be able to see or enjoy, and then select earth as the place to grow us?
Placing the sun, during creation after earth was formed according to Gen 1-16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. , far enough away that it would not burn us, but close enough that we would not freeze... And strong enough to grow things, but go out of sight so we could sleep at night.
I see the likely possibility of Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters... stating a simple fact of God was in creation mode, and be it 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago, it does not matter.... it just is fact.
And at some point, for His personal reasons, we were made....
Scientists can continue to come up with "how it was done"... but util they can actually make life... not test tube or cloning... they will be wrong.
The issue in this thread is not what God can and cannot do.
We all agree that God could make a universe in 14 billion years, or 6 days, or even 1 second.
The argument some people pose "don't you think God can't do this or this" therefore is irrelevant.
The one and only question that arises is: which has authority; scripture or science.
Should we measure and modify scripture according to scientific information...or should we measure and modify science according to scriptural information.
There also is a line of thought in between. Those who consider Genesis not to mean what it appears to say.
The consideration is that both scientific and scriptural information are true, but Genesis should be interpreted in such a way that scientific data fits.
This thought however has major irreconcilable theological consequences.
We are kind of stuck.
Either scripture is clear and true, or science is clear and true.
There really is no acceptable way they can be merged.
: Michael2012 Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 02:10:19
Specifically, He said "Let there be light." Guess what the first thing was in the Big Bang. Yep.
The big difference is, the former is infallible truth in scriptures, the latter is a fallible scientific theory. The former is God's words, the latter is man's (scientists's) words. The former is of God's wisdom, the latter is of man's (scientists') wisdom. The former is taken by faith, the latter is taken by scientific works.
Not only that, but Barbarian is also making a false claim.
The first thing that existed in the Big Bang was not light, but a singularity that could not have been but yet was, and which could not have "exploded" yet did.
Light was not the first thing that "banged" into existence, space was.
Light came later.
: AVZ Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 02:20:38Either scripture is clear and true, or science is clear and true.
There really is no acceptable way they can be merged.
But there is. I have posted this several times here in the past. It is an article written by Gerald Schroeder, an MIT physicist. He is the author of
Genesis and the Big Bang, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible, now in seven languages. He is also the author of
The Science of God and
The Hidden Face of God. Dr. Schroeder is currently a lecturer at Aish Jerusalem for the Discovery Seminar, Essentials program, Jerusalem Fellowships, and Executive Learning Center ― focusing on the topics of evolution, cosmology, and age of the universe.
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=srhot
The following is the first couple of paragraphs in the article.
How old is the world? Ancient commentators propose that the world may be simultaneously young and old.One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.
Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.
You really ought to read the article. It demonstrates quite clearly why your statement, "There really is no acceptable way they can be merged", is just plain wrong. The two can actually be merged quite nicely and fully acceptable.
: AVZ Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 02:27:07
Not only that, but Barbarian is also making a false claim.
The first thing that existed in the Big Bang was not light, but a singularity that could not have been but yet was, and which could not have "exploded" yet did.
Light was not the first thing that "banged" into existence, space was.
Light came later.
Silly man. A singularity is not a thing. It is a description of something; in this case it is a description of the extreme density and temperature of pure energy occupying an very small yet finite volume.
A singularity is a description for what occurs when you try to divide anything by a number approaching zero.
: AVZ Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 02:27:07
Not only that, but Barbarian is also making a false claim.
The first thing that existed in the Big Bang was not light, but a singularity that could not have been but yet was, and which could not have "exploded" yet did.
Light was not the first thing that "banged" into existence, space was.
Light came later.
Space was the first thing that came into existence.
Common sense tells us this if you believe the holy word.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Space would have had to be created or we all, with the entire universe would still be under water. literally.
No light did not come into play until space was created.
And whether or not you believe that this was part of the 6 24 hour day periods or that this came long before... this came first.
: Ginger Rella Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 07:12:28
Space was the first thing that came into existence.
Common sense tells us this if you believe the holy word.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Space would have had to be created or we all, with the entire universe would still be under water. literally.
No light did not come into play until space was created.
And whether or not you believe that this was part of the 6 24 hour day periods or that this came long before... this came first.
It was subspace. Or the realm of Species 8472.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ca/a2/13/caa21360ab7e1df2fc9988c010072169--star-trek-voyager-alien-vs.jpg)
: Alan Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 11:32:36
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ca/a2/13/caa21360ab7e1df2fc9988c010072169--star-trek-voyager-alien-vs.jpg)
there you go again...
Posting my picture...
: The Barbarian Thu Nov 29, 2018 - 14:41:01
Specifically, He said "Let there be light." Guess what the first thing was in the Big Bang. Yep.
IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?
: Carey Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 14:31:12
IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?
Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.
: Alan Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 14:48:35
Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.
Not if it is only ten thousand years old. ::smile::
: Alan Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 14:48:35
Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.
Still, light was not the first thing in the Big Bang.
Comparatively long or short time is not relevant. If something else was before light, then light could not have been first.
: Carey Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 16:16:13
Not if it is only ten thousand years old. ::smile::
Yep ::crackup::
IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?
The "Photon Epoch" in which there was only light, lasted from about 10 seconds after the initial expansion to about 370,000 years, when it all cooled sufficiently for matter to condense out of the light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch
Would God have been O.K. with a ten-second delay? I don't see why not.
Not only that, but Barbarian is also making a false claim.
The first thing that existed in the Big Bang was not light, but a singularity that could not have been but yet was, and which could not have "exploded" yet did.
It wasn't an explosion. "Big bang" is a figure of speech, invented by a critic of the theory. It was an expansion, not an explosion.
Light was not the first thing that "banged" into existence, space was.
Light came later.
About ten seconds after the initial expansion.
But it was the first thing in the universe, as it formed.
: The Barbarian Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 22:35:59
The "Photon Epoch" in which there was only light, lasted from about 10 seconds after the initial expansion to about 370,000 years, when it all cooled sufficiently for matter to condense out of the light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch
Would God have been O.K. with a ten-second delay? I don't see why not.
Still not the first thing, now was it?
Besides, the photons were made of gamma rays and the universe was not transparent: still no light.
: The Barbarian Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 22:41:26
About ten seconds after the initial expansion.
If it came AFTER something then it couldn't be the first thing.
What is light? Technically it is simply a very narrow range of frequency of electromagnetic energy. And it may well be that the initial energy of the big bang may have been some extremely dense form of electromagnetic energy. But no matter, it seems apparent that whatever the specific form or the initial energy of the big bang, God called it light. There was no Hebrew word for electromagnetic energy or for whatever was the form of the energy initially. Light is as good a description of that energy as any for the Hebrew in Moses' day and for most people today.
When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? ::pondering::
: Carey Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 14:31:12
IIRC, there was no visible light associated with the initial expansion, it was hundreds of thousands of years later the the first light illuminated the universe?
Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion.
BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?
: The Barbarian Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 22:41:26
It wasn't an explosion. "Big bang" is a figure of speech, invented by a critic of the theory. It was an expansion, not an explosion.
About ten seconds after the initial expansion.
But it was the first thing in the universe, as it formed.
You too Barbarian....
From what was there an expansion?
And where did that "what" originate and how?
: Alan Fri Nov 30, 2018 - 14:48:35
Yes, it's called the Era of Recombination, 240-300 thousand years after the initial expansion, still, that is a minute amount of time compared to the age of our universe.
Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? 12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; 13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. 15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. 16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? 18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth?
declare if thou knowest it all. 19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? 21
Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? 22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? 25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; 26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; 27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? 28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? 29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? 30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 31
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? 34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? 35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? 36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? 37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven, 38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together? 39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, 40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? 41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat................................
40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 2
Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. 3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 4
Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further. 6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 8
Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? 9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? 10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. 11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath:
and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. 12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. 13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret. 14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
Poor Job. If only you were there Alan, you and your evolutionist scientists, you could have answered God, couldn't you? You weren't there, but you know don't you? Oh yea, you know what happened thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of years ago don't you? If Job was vile in his own eyes for presuming to know and understand things beyond him, what are you and yours? Proud, puffed up scientists spouting off things they cannot possibly know concerning ions of times past, let alone yesterday, as fact because they said so.
2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Why do you deny the power of God revealed by His servants in the creation of this world, yet still hold to a form of godliness? Your pride in your own understanding undermines exactly who and what scripture says God is.
Rom 1:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you,
not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 07:42:45
When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? ::pondering::
Yes, as the singularity opens to fluidic space.
You too Barbarian....
From what was there an expansion?
The singularity.
And where did that "what" originate and how?
Science can't say. We can only say what happened at the beginning, not what happened before.
If you ever read
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, there's a passage wherein he writes that the witch knows the magic at the beginning, but not the deep magic before the beginning. That's only known to God.
He wrote a children's book, but there are profound truths in it.
: Amo Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 08:28:21
Poor Job. If only you were there Alan, you and your evolutionist scientists, you could have answered God, couldn't you? You weren't there, but you know don't you? Oh yea, you know what happened thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of years ago don't you? If Job was vile in his own eyes for presuming to know and understand things beyond him, what are you and yours? Proud, puffed up scientists spouting off things they cannot possibly know concerning ions of times past, let alone yesterday, as fact because they said so.
You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.
Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. ::playingguitar::
: Ginger Rella Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 07:51:14
You too Barbarian....
From what was there an expansion?
And where did that "what" originate and how?
I would say that the answer is with God, it is the same answer as "what existed before God create the heavens and the earth?" As for what set the expansion into motion? Same answer as before; GOD.
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 10:32:01
You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.
Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. ::playingguitar::
I'm not the one claiming I do know for certain. My faith is in the account given in scripture. Your's is in the account given by fallen humanity. The former claims to be the testimony God given to His servants for us, the latter is built upon the testimony of fallen humanity, a large majority of whom do not even believe in God.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
: Amo Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 10:40:32
I'm not the one claiming I do know for certain. My faith is in the account given in scripture. Your's is in the account given by fallen humanity. The former claims to be the testimony God given to His servants for us, the latter is built upon the testimony of fallen humanity, a large majority of whom do not even believe in God.
Again, you just don't understand the scriptures.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Yep, but nowhere does it say that we should see Amo for clarification.
Stepping outside of this discussion, you are a minority with your Sabbath and denominational beliefs. Do you honestly think that everyone outside of your views are fallen?
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 10:46:28
Again, you just don't understand the scriptures.
Yep, but nowhere does it say that we should see Amo for clarification.
Stepping outside of this discussion, you are a minority with your Sabbath and denominational beliefs. Do you honestly think that everyone outside of your views are fallen?
You know where the minority argument leads according to scripture don't you? It certainly doesn't support the notion that following the majority is a safe course of action.
I'm not the one between us that cannot explain what the scriptures mean regarding what I believe, you are. The creation account means pretty much just what it plainly states. OK, your turn now. What does the creation account mean, and why was it given to us the way it was? Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=gw9akeGPVgc
A good one addressing where all the evidence really points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE
Another good one.
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 07:42:45
When a Black Hole engulfs light, is it still considered light? ::pondering::
Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.
But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.
Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays, or maybe is was light that wasn't visible, or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.
Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.
Obviously you guys are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.
: Ginger Rella Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 07:51:14From what was there an expansion?
From nothing.
: GingerAnd where did that "what" originate and how?
God
: AVZ Sun Dec 02, 2018 - 11:48:42Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.
But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.
Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays, or maybe is was light that wasn't visible, or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.
Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.
Obviously you guys are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.
What is funny is how quick you are to accept the metaphoric reference to light before there is a sun, moon or stars as a source for light, but demand that a metaphoric reference to day is absolutely wrong.
The fact is, both God and the Bible established that there was light on the first day. It is the creationist that has no real answer for it.
It is quite apparent here that you mock the scientific explanation of what happened when you know nothing whatsoever about what the scientific explanation even is.
Lets stick to the comparison brought forth by Barbarian.
Clearly the light described in Genesis is visible light. God called the light day, and the dark night.
But it is funny to see how quick you guys appeal to a pure materialistic description of light.
The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."
Like: well, it could just have been electromagnetic rays,
Light is electromagnetic rays.
or maybe is was light that wasn't visible,
So you're saying that light that isn't visible changes night to day? How so?
or well even if it wasn't first...it was close enough etc.
You think that if the Bible says someone goes at once, it's a lie, if he took ten seconds to do it? I don't think so.
Yet, when creationists point out that God created light on the first day, you are quick to note that that's ridiculous because the sun wasn't created yet.
No, that's not true. Christians say that it's absurd to speak of mornings and evenings as literal things before there was a sun to have them. Obviously you are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 02, 2018 - 13:57:10
The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."
Light is electromagnetic rays.
So you're saying that light that isn't visible changes night to day? How so?
You think that if the Bible says someone goes at once, it's a lie, if he took ten seconds to do it? I don't think so.
No, that's not true. Christians say that it's absurd to speak of mornings and evenings as literal things before there was a sun to have them. Obviously you are willing to embrace any proposition, except the one in Genesis.
Leaving Genesis out of things for the moment. I had assumed that God created light perhaps to be able to see what He was doing?
Nope... cannot leave Gen out of it... sorry.
Gen 1: 1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then 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 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. (I deliberately left off the first day mention)
1. Tells us that earth was without form and God's Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters... ( the dark waters)
3 . Then God said "Let there be light". So He could easily see,
5. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. God always refers to the evening ( dark, and the morning (light) as day whatever.... So he was hovering over the waters in the dark in the evening ad then He created light and it was morning.
That should be as clear as the nose on your face.
HE did not need a sun or moon.... He only wanted light.
We can get a light from a flashlight to see by and there is no need of a sun or moon.
When the sn and the moon entered into the equation was when God was preparing for "life" and knew that "life" would need such as He was designing it that way.... He was setting up a calendar or dorts and guides that man could follow. HE did not need this. We did.
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on 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 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 10:32:01
You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.
Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. ::playingguitar::
there is no evidence for a singularity either, so you too don't know for certain.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 02, 2018 - 13:57:10
The YE creationist guidelines: "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal."
Typical instance of the pot calling the kettle
In Genesis 1 God tells us who created the universe, and how He did it.
You have no explanation for the existence if a singularity, so you are fully prepared to take Genesis 1:1-2 as literal truth.
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."After verse 2 however, you change your position and declare the rest of Genesis metaphorical.
You "accuse" YE Creationists for saying "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal.", whilst in fact you do exactly the same.
Why not be a big boy and declare the whole chapter 1 of Genesis metaphorical including verses 1 & 2?
: AVZ Sun Dec 02, 2018 - 22:17:14there is no evidence for a singularity either, so you too don't know for certain.
Of course there is. Perhaps you just don't understand the evidence that exists.
: AVZ Sun Dec 02, 2018 - 22:38:39Typical instance of the pot calling the kettle
In Genesis 1 God tells us who created the universe, and how He did it.
No, God doesn't tell us how He did it except in the most general sense.
: AVZYou have no explanation for the existence if a singularity,
But we do have and explanation for the existence of the singularity; It is God.
: AVZ so you are fully prepared to take Genesis 1:1-2 as literal truth.
Actually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.
: AVZYou "accuse" YE Creationists for saying "Genesis is literal, except where we don't want it to be literal.", whilst in fact you do exactly the same.
No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate. That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.
: AVZWhy not be a big boy and declare the whole chapter 1 of Genesis metaphorical including verses 1 & 2?
Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.
: 4WD Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 04:49:53
Actually, I believe that Genesis 2:1-2 is figurative speech from God as is most of the rest of the chapter.
No, we accept Genesis as literal where it seems appropriate and figurative where that seems appropriate. That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood.Much of the whole of chapter 1 is indeed figurative language.
WOW!
Such dogmatic hypocrisy.
To cherry pick specific scriptures and biblical verses where that seems appropriate.... for what purposes??? Is it if you cannot understand then it cannot be fact?
That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood
WOW!
This out of the mouth of one who will argue till the cows come home that every scripture mentioning baptism must, unequivocally, be regarded as dogmatic fact, when there have been more debates over that topic , then any other, because a lot of people regard that as figurative speech if not just saying ti wass meant for others and not them.
WOW....
I am not a YE person.
I do believe the bible is God's inerrant word even with man messing things up even with God impressing in his mind something that needs recorded.
And that makes them post things that they may not understand, but also could be that God just glossed over it as it really is not needed for us to follow him.
Gen 1:1 specifically can, and does in my opinion , indicate that God was in creation mode long before He decided He wanted life as we know it to exist.
We do not need to know how.
We do not know and cannot know.
Until science creates life that is not test tube or cloned, science is only guessing and the one that sounds the most intelligent, and or likely will be the accepted one.
Unfortunately I have a whole lot more to say on this but I need to go.
Perhaps later.
WOW! You don't really pay much attention to what I write. But that is OK. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to what you write on this subject.
: Alan Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 10:32:01
You weren't there either, nor was the author of Genesis. The undeniable fact lies in the evidence which most definitely makes your interpretation incorrect.
Carry on with your puffed up religious spirit, spouting off things that you can't possibly know for certain. ::playingguitar::
I don't know that the author of Genesis wasn't there to observe these events, it certainly reads like a first person observation. And if God chose to show the author creation over a six day period..... ::pondering::
: Ginger Rella Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 07:14:20
WOW!
Such dogmatic hypocrisy.
To cherry pick specific scriptures and biblical verses where that seems appropriate.... for what purposes??? Is it if you cannot understand then it cannot be fact?
That of course is the way the entire Bible is to be understood
WOW!
This out of the mouth of one who will argue till the cows come home that every scripture mentioning baptism must, unequivocally, be regarded as dogmatic fact, when there have been more debates over that topic , then any other, because a lot of people regard that as figurative speech if not just saying ti wass meant for others and not them.
WOW....
I am not a YE person.
I do believe the bible is God's inerrant word even with man messing things up even with God impressing in his mind something that needs recorded.
And that makes them post things that they may not understand, but also could be that God just glossed over it as it really is not needed for us to follow him.
Gen 1:1 specifically can, and does in my opinion , indicate that God was in creation mode long before He decided He wanted life as we know it to exist.
We do not need to know how.
We do not know and cannot know.
Until science creates life that is not test tube or cloned, science is only guessing and the one that sounds the most intelligent, and or likely will be the accepted one.
Unfortunately I have a whole lot more to say on this but I need to go.
Perhaps later.
Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.
I don't know that the author of Genesis wasn't there to observe these events, it certainly reads like a first person observation. And if God chose to show the author creation over a six day period..... ::pondering::
That makes sense. I'd have to think about that for a while, but it connects pretty well to what ancient Christians like Augustine wrote about it.
: AVZ Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 08:33:48Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.
But then that raises another big dilemma and that is if everything is literal then Jesus is apparently just another name for some door somewhere now long gone. Or maybe instead or also Jesus is just a vine now long dead and of no use to anyone.
Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?
-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands
This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.
: AVZ Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 08:33:48
Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.
I never said figuratively. But you would be correct ... if that were proven to be so.
I believe literally within the margin of error that the human equation will bring to the mix. Human error would be the misunderstanding of what came by thought or dream. Also Human error would be putting it to words in terms that would be understood by their contemporaries. Also human error would be with the translators, who, in the case of King James... put Easter in where it never was and put replenish in Genesis when Hebrew never said that... all because they were putting their own spin on things.... and who would be around to challenge them?
Let's take a quick look at 2 Peter 3 : 1-
1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),
2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, ( Scoffers abound today in every facet of life... not just waiting for Jesus)
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men. ( NOW...?... preserved by the same word! Were not always preserved by the same word?
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.)
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Therefore, it is conceivable that the "evening and morning were day# whatever..... could well have been a thousand human years per day.
There is no way of knowing...
For we do not know how the inspirations came to man.
I do know that Genesis 1 vs 1 could have been 6,000 years ago... or 6 million. Even Peter tells us "by the word of God the heavens were of old"... which could well be an understanding by Peter that the heavens were made long before man walked earth.
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 10:22:26
Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?
-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands
This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.
You call these figuratively, but I call them descriptive...
The same way I have said more then once in certain circumstances The God had my back. Or I might tell you not to worry I have your back.
: Ginger Rella Sat Dec 01, 2018 - 07:48:18
Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion.
BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?
I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence. But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.
It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.
: Carey Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 10:32:26
I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence. But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.
It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.
IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. ::doh::
: Ginger Rella Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 12:28:49
IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. ::doh::
We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo . Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. ::tippinghat::
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 13:25:52
We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo .
Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. ::tippinghat::
I am not others here. My thoughts, beliefs and knowledge is not as others here either.
And as usual, I am not understood. And I speak for only myself.
#1. I was not referencing anyone here. I was making a generic reference to Carey's posted reply of
"I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence.
But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory. It expanded from a singularity,
which kind of means we don't know. Which seemingly he was referencing the scientific community in general.
I see that scientific community as holding , by enlarge , a totally agnostic approach and attitude toward something they will never be able to definitively explain... leaving common man ( and woman) to accept or reject their suppositions .
I say suppositions because they cannot definitively explain anything about how anything originally came about, but are masters of double talk and 50 cent words that make them sound so intelligent people assume they have to be right....
So when Carey replied to my query of
"Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion."
To which he responded "I cannot, I would have to leave that to
more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence. But
they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.
And
BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?
To which he responded "It expanded from a singularity,
which kind of means we don't know. And I merely said IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input.
No reference to anyone here at all.
#2 NOW as to your "Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang."
I will repeat for the 47th time. I do not believe in a 6K year old universe.
I can accept 6k, 10k, or even 13K ( a figure that has been bandied around but I have yet to see an explanation on)
as to the age of the earth since Adam until now.
Yes, I said Adam..... which excludes
Gen 1
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God
He created him; male and female He created
them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [h]moves on the earth."
And further instructed them
29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed;
to you it shall be for food. (They were to be vegetarians)A lot happened between Gen 1 and Adam being formed from the dust of the ground and placed in the Garden of Eden.........
But Gen 1:1, in and of itself, is most certainly indicative of a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away from earth and the life He would create when the time was right for His purposes.
I am aware you will not understand me.... sigh.... This time I got smart, wrote it in a doc and can copy and paste as often as needed ::nodding::
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 13:25:52
We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo .
Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. ::tippinghat::
Why? What makes you think God created the universe from one singularity?
What do you mean with "an awfully big bang"?
The reason for my post was the statement below.
: Ginger Rella Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 12:28:49
IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. ::doh::
....to which I say that no one is leaving God out, it was indeed His doing.
Not quite sure why we are being bunked in with atheists that believe in an unknown singularity that set the universe in motion and life therein starting by chance. ::rollingeyes::
: AVZ Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 17:52:34
Why? What makes you think God created the universe from one singularity?
What do you mean with "an awfully big bang"?
Just my thoughts I suppose, absolutely no theory behind it but I imagine that creation would have been a violent event rather than flipping a switch to "voila".
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 17:59:39
The reason for my post was the statement below.
....to which I say that no one is leaving God out, it was indeed His doing.
Not quite sure why we are being bunked in with atheists that believe in an unknown singularity that set the universe in motion and life therein starting by chance. ::rollingeyes::
Why do you feel like you are being bunked in with atheists? ::frown::
It this not understandable? What I last posted? ::pondering::
I was not referencing anyone here. I was making a generic reference to Carey's posted reply of............. ::doh::
Would it be better if I replied in French? Or hollar in all caps? ::announcment::
No one here can be included with them...
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 18:03:46
Just my thoughts I suppose, absolutely no theory behind it but I imagine that creation would have been a violent event rather than flipping a switch to "voila".
Why?
None of the other (re)creative events in scripture where Jesus healed people for example were violent events.
They were all acts of "flipping a switch..'voila'"
: Alan Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 10:22:26
Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?
-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands
This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.
Sorry I had you waiting a little while.
I am not sure what point you want to make with the above.
That there are metaphors in scripture is undeniable, but that does not grant you the right to arbitrarily call things to be a metaphor as you deem fit.
You say: "The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively."
Duh...of course they are. Metaphors are indeed designed to be interpreted figuratively, otherwise they wouldn't be metaphors.
More importantly however, most of the samples you provided could be interpreted other than metaphorical.
And in case where something could be interpreted both ways, we look at context.
So what you are attempting to say is that you are at liberty to declare Genesis metaphorical because metaphors exist elsewhere in scripture.
In that case I could declare the book of Matthew poetic because poems exist in scripture as well.
The situation in the creation story however is completely different from the list you provide above.
The creation story is completely intelligible if taken literal.
De facto you are setting up a strawman argument that insinuates that if you declare something to be a metaphor, you are entitled to do so because there are other places with metaphors in scripture.
At the same time you also insinuate that the claim is made that metaphorical expressions should be "dismissed", whilst in fact such a claim has never been made.
: Ginger Rella Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 18:38:49
Why do you feel like you are being bunked in with atheists? ::frown::
Because you said "anything that leaves God out of the equation". I don't know any other way to take that statement when no one is claiming that God isn't the designer.
: AVZ Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 20:26:07The situation in the creation story however is completely different from the list you provide above.
The creation story is completely intelligible if taken literal.
The creation account is not intelligible if taken literal given what we now know to be the case. Given all the evidence to the actual physical age of the universe, the Genesis account of creation cannot be considered a literal description. The description of light, which comprises only a very narrow range of the complete electromagnetic frequency spectrum, must be taken as figurative; other wise there is no basis for the existence of gamma rays, X-rays, and all the rest of the spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The statement of "there was evening and there was morning" must be taken as figurative given what we know to be the literal cause of literal evenings and mornings. And so much more of the complete description as presented must be taken as figurative given what we know about such things today.
: AVZDe facto you are setting up a strawman argument that insinuates that if you declare something to be a metaphor, you are entitled to do so because there are other places with metaphors in scripture.
But, AVZ, you hoist yourself with your own petard. De facto you are setting up a straw man argument that if you declare a description to be literal, you are entitled to do so because there are other places that are not figurative in the Scriptures.
: AVZAt the same time you also insinuate that the claim is made that metaphorical expressions should be "dismissed", whilst in fact such a claim has never been made.
Here again you commit the same or similar infraction. You insinuate that the unless we take your literal interpretation as the true meaning that God intended we have left God out of the creation account. That is simply not true.
: Ginger Rella Mon Dec 03, 2018 - 12:28:49
IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. ::doh::
Science does not address God or the supernatural, it's only concern is the natural world and the laws that govern it. In the case of the big bang, there is an extremely short period of time at the very beginning known as the Planck Epoch. Here God is at work, and science cannot comment as natural laws do not apply during this period.
God created a self sustaining system. Beyond the initial creation of energy, matter, life, and the natural laws that govern them, most of universe and the events therein, there is no need for Him to tinker.
You may believe that this minimizes His input, perhaps it does quantitatively, but qualitatively it does the opposite. Any fool can perform a simple task repetitively, it takes wisdom and knowledge to create a process that performs the task automatically.
: The Barbarian Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 17:25:12
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
One can ascertain what yom in Genesis meant when that yom is defined by an evening and a morning that day.
Indeed, the first day of creation was the establishment of what a day was by that creation of light whereby there was evening and morning that very first day.
Then you have the creation of the sabbath day as signifying God rested that day from the 6 days of creation.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
So it is plain to Moses since he did write Genesis & Exodus what he was led to write as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that God created everything in six days.
Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
One can ascertain what yom in Genesis meant when that yom is defined by an evening and a morning that day.
As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.
So it is plain to Moses since he did write Genesis & Exodus what he was led to write as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that God created everything in six days.
I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one. I'd be open to your evidence that it does.
Carey, Barbarian,
::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
: The Barbarian Fri Dec 07, 2018 - 22:25:54
Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
Macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as real science and since it changes the facts of the evolution theory from gradual macroevolution to rapid macroevolution, it proves that the theory only exists in the realm of the imagination while God's words are unchanging in the KJV.
As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.
If it is absurd, it is only because they believe in the evolution theory which is more absurd than to NOT take God at His word since Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken.
I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one. I'd be open to your evidence that it does.
If you can find evidence of genetic information being added to a living organism, without the aid of mad science, then you would have macroevolution as real science that can be observed and proven, but as it is, there is no mutant registration act passed by Congress nor any science facility to give wings to the general public that would allow them to continue as a homosuperior specie with that added genetic information through reproduction. Not happening ever.
Why? Because the Law of Biogenesis says macroevolution can never happen. The law of science states that life cannot come from nothing; that life comes from similar life.
The evolution theory borrowed the term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis to make macroevolution believable. If you look online for the definition from dictionary and universities websites, you will find that the definition between microevolution and macroevolution will be separate at some sites while some will blur the definitions between the two, and a few have them reading as if they are the same thing. How is that for discipline in the field of science today?
Then you have some evolutionists proposing that gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true when rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of "transitional fossils" in the fossil record. Gould that proposed the more favored theory said that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosion in the fossil record. While most evolutionists would argue that Gould never meant for that to mean a global flood that covered the mountains, yet fossilized marine life including whale bones have been found buried together with fossilized land animal bones on the mountaintops in the Andes. In some places, all they have to do is bend down and pick them up. So while they gave that presentation in the media only in "if the evolution theory is true" mentality, by citing that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life, they overlook the fossilized land animal bones buried together with them, as well as the obviousness of the evidence for the global flood.
Many can argue for the "facts" of the evolution theory, like they are now saying that dinosaurs evolved from the birds rather than the other way around now, but it ought to don on you now that there are no facts of the evolution theory at all when they borrow that term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis to make gradual macroevolution believable and they cannot keep the definitions straight any more.
So it is time for you to decide who you are going to believe; the Lord Jesus Christ Whom has validated scripture and Genesis regarding the seventh day "created" for man and the first marriage linked to the creation of man and woman or you believe that false science being paraded around as real science when nothing about macroevolution has ever been proven.
And the false science that is the Theory of Evolution being spouted as true science has caused many to lose their faith in God's words and have turned away from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ altogether.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
As long as the evolution theory is taught as true in schools all over the world, you will always have bullying and abortion in the world as naturally selecting the weak and the vulnerable to extinction. Now is that something God would call "good" in finally getting man made right in His image after hundreds of millions of years rather than in one day with the woman from his rib in that same day? That would mean death was in the world before Adam & Eve and sin is not responsible for death in the world because of sin, and therefore how can you be sure of your eternal salvation in Christ Jesus when death, sin, and hades will be cast into the lake of fire signifying that we, the saved believers, will never be separated from God ever again?
May God open your eyes to the lies of the evolution theory and why many have had their faith in Him overthrown because of that false science.
I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one. I'd be open to your evidence that it does.
Barbarian, are you suggesting that this isn't literal language but figurative?
8 "Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Also, I have these questions:
1. If as you say, the days in the Genesis creation are figurative, perhaps of millions, if not billion of years each, is the day, when God rested also figurative?
2. If the day, when God rested also figurative, how can that be remembered, in keeping with the 4th commandment of God?
3. God said of the Sabbath day, that He rested from all His work which God had created and made. How many years do you think is the figurative seventh day?
4. God commanded "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." How does one keep a figurative day holy?
Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
Macroevolution has never been observed
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation. New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact. What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution." As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.
Barbarian observes:
As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.
If it is absurd, it is only because they believe in the evolution theory
There was no evolutionary theory 1500 years ago.
Barbarian suggests:
I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one. I'd be open to your evidence that it does.
If you can find evidence of genetic information being added to a living organism,
Sure. The HbC mutation in humans is a recent mutation. In the population in question, there were at least two other alleles for hemoglobin. Let's say they were 50% each. Now, the formula for information in any given gene locus is:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9017e7f5171f1770f8bd702487f297b77df8a907)
So assuming two alleles with 0.5 frequency each, the information for that gene locus is: 0.5 X log(0.5) X 2 or about 0.3.0. Now suppose the new allele becomes equal in frequency to the other two. Then it would be .333 X log(.333) X3, or about 0.48. As you see, an increase in information. It also produces a new form of hemoglobin in the population that happens to provide good protection against a common parasite, without the debilitating effects of a similar allele, but that really is irrelevant to the question of information.
then you would have macroevolution as real science that can be observed and proven,
No. See above. New information generally does not result in speciation. And sometimes, speciation can be the result of a loss of information. Would you like to learn how that works?
but as it is, there is no mutant registration act passed by Congress nor any science facility to give wings to the general public that would allow them to continue as a homosuperior specie with that added genetic information through reproduction. Not happening ever.
Forget X-men. It doesn't act that way. Would you consider stronger bones or more powerful muscles to be a favorable change? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to know your opinion.
Why? Because the Law of Biogenesis says macroevolution can never happen.
No, you've been misled about that. Indeed, Pasteur, the an who proposed the law, acknowledged the fact of evolution. Biogenesis says life can only come from life. God says otherwise, but that's beside the point.
The law of science
There is no "law of science."
states that life cannot come from nothing
That's what evolutionary theory shows us. Evolution produces nothing that is not a modification of something already there. Would you like to learn about that?
[quoteThe evolution theory borrowed the term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis[/quote]
No. Biogenesis says nothing about microevolution.
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
Then you have some evolutionists proposing that gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true when rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of "transitional fossils" in the fossil record.
You've been misled about that, too. Here's YE creationist (and PhD paleontologist) Kurt Wise on the subject:
Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Gould that proposed the more favored theory said that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosion in the fossil record.
No. That's not remotely what he said about punctuated equilibrium. Would you like to learn about that?
Many can argue for the "facts" of the evolution theory, like they are now saying that dinosaurs evolved from the birds rather than the other way around now,
No, you have that wrong, too. There are still a few ornithologists that say that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. Instead, they have claimed that both birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common thecodont ancestor, which was neither bird nor dinosaur. Since the, the accumulation of evidence strongly supports a dinosaur ancestry for birds. Would you like to learn about that?
As you now realize, you were fed a lot of foolishness by people who knew no more than you do. Wouldn't it be better to learn what science really says about evolution?
And the false science that is the Theory of Evolution being spouted as true science has caused many to lose their faith in God's words and have turned away from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ altogether.
You have that backwards. It is YE creationism that is the great atheist-maker...
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
"Answers in Genesis" has that as one of their "arguments we believe creationists should not use." "Science" in NT times, did not mean what it does today. It meant something like "learning."
[quoteAs long as the evolution theory is taught as true in schools all over the world, you will always have bullying and abortion in the world as naturally selecting the weak and the vulnerable to extinction. [/quote]
You think there was no bullying and abortion until evolutionary theory? No, that's just absurd.
Someone's given you many erroneous ideas about Christianity and science. Take a little time; read your Bible with a mind open to the Holy Spirit, and learn a little about biology. Both will do you good.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 09, 2018 - 15:05:20
Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution? While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."
If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.
If any one tries to fit the evolution theory into God's words, then they are not understanding God's words that debunks the evolution theory for what it represents.
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation. New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact. What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution." As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.
Microevolution includes all different and new variations of that specie; as in a cow will always be a cow; a rose by any other name is still a rose. For Macroevolution to be true, that "new specie" can no longer be identified with that former species. That means the cow cannot look like nor be a different variation of a cow in order for that cow to be called something else entirely to qualify as a new specie, and thus no longer a cow.
Evolutionists would like to troll out the new specie of lizards and new species of birds that was never known to have existed on a volcanic island.
Problem #1; That so called new species is still a lizard and still a bird. Hardly macroevolution at all.
Problem #2: The new species was never observed as coming from that former species as each report lay claims to this new species.
Problem #3 They never bothered to prove that this new species is coming about because of that supposed known former species being on a volcanic island.
Problem #4 We do not see evolutionists scurrying to the island in the hopes that the volcanic activity will somehow macroevolve them as they claim must be the cause for the new species.
Any real scientist knows that hypothesis are to be proven or disproven. You just don't let it go with a casual observation and making assumptions as if by being able to do so makes it a fact.
How hard is it to prove that the new species came from the know species from the island? Did the new species come from the eggs of the former species? That was not the report, now was it? All they did was say.. wow.. where did that come from? We have found a new specie!! Yippee.
So let's be real. El Nino can carry birds away from their regular locale and wind up far away from their usual areas they are known for.
With volcanic activity on the island, bushes and tress where this new specie of bird have been living in obviously have been burned away and therefore exposed to sightings what otherwise would never have been known to have also existed on that same island.
Then you have the same problem of the ground as there are creatures that lives beneath the earth for why volcanic activity would drive the lizard up from beneath the ground to be spotted.
I would not be surprised that someone that lives on that island knew of that "new specie" of bird and that "new specie" of the lizard but just rarely seen before the volcanic activity.
Bottom line; they just don't prove anything as far as macroevolution in ever taking place and they just cheat by saying any new species of cows that has never existed before is proof of macroevolution when it is not. The same applies to these new species of lizard and birds spotted on the volcano island that they assume was never before seen on that island.
Anybody ever take a nature walk in the woods around your place? I am sure you will discover living things that you have never seen around your house, but that doesn't mean you just discovered a new species.
When thespians have seen the audience before the curtains rise for their play to begin, noticing a quarter of the seats not taken, and after the play is over, they noticed some of those seats are taken by newer people, none of them are claiming macroevolution, so I don't know why anyone can take anybody else at their word when seeing something that wasn't there before and yet did not actually observed the macroevolution in the process of creating that new species.
So let's cut the bull scientifically and call it for what it is; assumption not proven as evidence... yet, BUT even if we succeed to get them to admit that, they will not care to prove it scientifically. That should irk you, me, and all of us.
If any one tries to fit the evolution theory into God's words,...
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words. That's not what scripture is for. As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution. But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.
Barbarian observes:
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation. New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact. What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution." As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.
Microevolution includes all different and new variations of that specie; as in a cow will always be a cow; a rose by any other name is still a rose. For Macroevolution to be true, that "new specie" can no longer be identified with that former species.
Yep. As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones. They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."
Any real scientist knows that hypothesis are to be proven or disproven.
I'm a real scientist. Guess how I know you aren't. (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 09, 2018 - 17:36:54I'm a real scientist. Guess how I know you aren't. (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)
And that is precisely why he shouldn't get involved in discussions like this. He has every right to present his own interpretation of Scripture as everyone does; but those with so little training in the sciences should usually stay away from discussions involving science.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 09, 2018 - 17:36:54
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words. That's not what scripture is for. As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.
Scripture disproves the evolution theory outright.
But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.
Based on what? The behemoth as described in Job chapter 40 is a dinosaur; nothing else. No creature has a tail like a cedar which is a tree. And in that same verse 17 is knowledge that the sexual organs of the dinosaurs are inside long before scientists figured it out.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Jesus validated scripture that it cannot be broken. It is vain to imply yom to mean anything else than a 24 hour day as the Jews understand it that at sunset when evening has come, is the beginning of the next day.
Jesus even validated the sabbath day for why it was created for man to rest in and why as mentioned in scripture as the day God rested from the six days of creation.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Jesus testified that Moses was speaking of Him.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.....46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Jesus validated the creation of man and woman when He referred to that first marriage in how God meant marriage to be forever with no divorce issued by man to separate.
Barbarian observes:
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation. New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact. What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution." As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.
Yep. As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones. They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."
How come you cannot comprehend that " changes in allele frequency within a species" also means and includes the creation of a new variation of that specie within that specie?
I'm a real scientist. Guess how I know you aren't. (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)
Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education. You got ripped off bad.
Because the laws of science are proven as real science that can be observed and proven time and time again.
You just got lost in theoretical science for why you believe that science can never be proven or disproven. I can understand how that can happen to you when they infiltrate every aspect of our education with that false science that is called the evolution theory.
I am asking you, brother, to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to help you see the lies that have convinced you otherwise because the evolution theory as in macroevolution, is not true nor can it ever be true.
Indeed, for how you ended your post..." (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) " , then I fail to see why you believe in the evolution theory at all rather than God's words as is?
: LastCall Sun Dec 09, 2018 - 18:08:14Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education. You got ripped off bad.
Hummmm. And evaluation of the value of someone's education in science by another who apparently knows almost nothing about science.
: LastCallIndeed, for how you ended your post..." (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) " , then I fail to see why you believe in the evolution theory at all rather than God's words as is?
Perhaps you could begin by proving the truth of God's word or proving the very existence of God. Once you have done that you can then begin to speak about what is proven or not proven in science.
: 4WD Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 04:52:45
Hummmm. And evaluation of the value of someone's education in science by another who apparently knows almost nothing about science.
Cute. I recognize the need for personal attacks when you guys have nothing to counter on the issue when the laws of science is considered real science that can be observed and proven time and time again.
Perhaps you could begin by proving the truth of God's word or proving the very existence of God. Once you have done that you can then begin to speak about what is proven or not proven in science.
I can prove the truth that evolution theory is a false science by the words of the one you defend: here it is now: The Barbarian said "" (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) "
So then if nothing is proven or disproven in science, why take the words of science as fact or truth over God's words then when Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken?
John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Did not Jesus refer to the scripture for the authority to rebuke and correct others by?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Do you read afterwards if any of the Jews were mocking Jesus saying "Oh ho ho ho! They are just stories, you stupid man!" No. You do not. Why? Because by the authority of the scripture is how the Jews stone sinful Jews to death, even though the Jews did not understand everything written in scripture concerning Jesus Christ as Moses did write about Him.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life....46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
So you think God's words is something Jesus take lightly when scripture testifies of Him in the O.T. as the God that men have seen? It is the Father that men have not seen, but the God that men had seen in the O.T. was Jesus before His incarnation.
Since Jesus was the man that Jacob was wrestling with in Genesis 32:24-30 and Abraham saw the Lord on numerous occasion including that one day in Genesis 18:1 for why Jesus said this:
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
How can you believe it took God a long time to make man right through the false science of the evolution theory? Did you note how when everything was created, it was mature and bearing seeds as the living things were mature as well? Was not Adam a man created from the dust? The scripture says so and Jesus would back it up.
Genesis 1:27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Jacob wrestling with his Creator that was a man by Whom we were fashioned after His image is no ape man nor any thing remotely from the evolutionary tree.
Just because God gave maturity to living things and nature, does not mean mankind can tell how old everything is because He created the heavens that fourth day to give lights to the earth to givern its seasons so that mean as He spoke, those sources of lights in the heavens came about and filled in the gap from those sources of lights in the heavens to givern the earth that day.
Science cannot prove how old the earth is when they get errant dating results within know human history. The dating of a living mollusk was carb dated as 2,300 years old dead but it is still alive. Even carbon dating samples of the same creature has given dramatic different results. Whennver they get errant dating results or find a human skeleton out of place, they confer with the evolutionary geological time chart which said chart does not exists anywhere in the world.
But you guys would take that false science of that theoritical science that cannot be proven nor disproven over God's words?
By the way, scripture says only God can cause the increase; so no matter what truths I convey, if the person is not seeking Him or if that person is a mocker, then I cannot convince him of anything unless God intervenes, and by His words, He wouldn't when only those that seek, shall find as promised by Him.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 09:07:12
Cute. I recognize the need for personal attacks when you guys have nothing to counter on the issue when the laws of science is considered real science that can be observed and proven time and time again.
It's not a personal attack, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 09:07:12So then if nothing is proven or disproven in science, why take the words of science as fact or truth over God's words then when Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken?
Still ranting about something that you obviously know nothing about.
You would do well to select something about which you have some knowledge. Unfortunately you won't do that.
You are looking for proof; again, I challenge you to prove that God exists. And if you cannot do that, then how can you prove that anything you say about His word is truth.
On a different note, I don't take the words of science as fact or truth over God's word. In the case at hand I do take science as fact or truth over your interpretation of various passages of God's word. And that is certainly not limited to the subject of this topic.
: Alan Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 09:34:31
It's not a personal attack, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Still waiting for you to prove it, o seemingly educated one. But wait. You can't. Because nothing in science is proven nor disproven.
So clearly you are only referring to theoretical science yet to become a law of science which can only become a law when it is observed and proven time and time again.
Or would you like to educate me what the law of science actually means if it is not about something that can be observed and thus PROVEN?
: 4WD Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 10:40:33
Still ranting about something that you obviously know nothing about.
You would do well to select something about which you have some knowledge. Unfortunately you won't do that.
And yet you claim any body can access that information to educate yourself but somehow you lack Christian love to share it as simply as you understand it that it seems so obvious to you.
You are looking for proof; again, I challenge you to prove that God exists. And if you cannot do that, then how can you prove that anything you say about His word is truth.
On a different note, I don't take the words of science as fact or truth over God's word. In the case at hand I do take science as fact or truth over your interpretation of various passages of God's word. And that is certainly not limited to the subject of this topic.
A reconciled relationship with God is a personal thing whereby the believers will know He is in them. We cannot convince others of the existence of God unless they are seeking Him to find Him.
Mockers do not care if the tomb of Jesus Christ is empty. Those not seeking Him will not be convinced otherwise, but the evidence of God in creation is obvious to all, even to the mockers.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And since scripture has exposed the mockers as existing in our world, why is it that you cannot see them in that false science that is the evolution theory?
So I do not care to understand the fairytale spinning that is going on in that false science as if "oh yeah.. that is the way we do it in science; not. Science like detectives, are to prove or disprove the hypothesis; not go spinning another hypothesis on the other one assuming it to be true as if because you can keep on hypothesizing, then it must be true. But if any evidence comes to the contrary, they can back peddle and spin the fairy tale better." You do that in any other field or in life, it is considered LYING, and when people back peddle, they usually stop listening to that liar.
But I reckon the evolution theory appeals to your itching ear so I leave you to it.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 12:39:43
Still waiting for you to prove it, o seemingly educated one. But wait. You can't. Because nothing in science is proven nor disproven.
So clearly you are only referring to theoretical science yet to become a law of science which can only become a law when it is observed and proven time and time again.
Or would you like to educate me what the law of science actually means if it is not about something that can be observed and thus PROVEN?
A scientific theory is above a scientific law, any text book will explain why that is but here is a short article so that you may become informed of your error.
https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b
: Alan Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 12:59:54
A scientific theory is above a scientific law, any text book will explain why that is but here is a short article so that you may become informed of your error.
https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b
That is a pretty good foot dancing around the law of science and the scientific theory when the article is geared towards treating the evolution theory as if it is true and thus proving to be bias.
Did you note that it did not prove what you said it would that a scientific theory is above scientific law?
The Law of Biogensis is what? Life did not come from nothing; life comes from similar life.
So how do you apply that in observation? That cows comes from cows; they may vary in appearances, and even get a new kind of different looking cow, but still a cow. Same with the dogs.
That also means that no genetic information can be added to a living organism such as a fish to start growing legs. It cannot happen because that would mean that extra genetic information came from out of nowhere as in coming from nothing for that to happen. Do you see the problem or not when teh law states that life cannot come from nothing and so no added genetic information can come from nothing to be given to an established living organism?
The Law of Biogenesis can be observed and proven time and time again. Macroevolution of a cow becoming a whale has not been observed nor can it ever be proven. There are not even any transitional fossils of this slow transition from the cow to the whale in the fossil records that supposedly happened through gradual macroevolution.
Which was why punctuated macroevolution ( or rapid macroevolution ) was proosed by Gould because of the huge gaps of transtional fossils in the fossil record, but of course he is wrong there too, because the Law of Biogensis debunks such a thing from ever happening when life comes from similar life which that law has been observed and proven time and time again.
We can add intelligent meddling in cross breeding for new species. Scientists bred a lion with a tiger and managed to get a male liger and a female liger but they could not reproduce at all.
Now consider the ramification of such intelligent design meddling and consider how imporobable the statistic would be for something to become something else entirely by chance alone and yet be able to get a mate by that same statistical improbability to be able to continue as that new entirely different species in reproduction. ZERO.
There is no evidence of macroevolution that has been observed nor proven. Microevolution is just a borrowed term from the Law of Biogenesis to make macroevolution believable, but it is not. Any new species of cows is not macroevolution but the Law of Biogenesis because it is still a cow as life comes from similar life.
But thank you for sharing that link. At least you are trying to share your knowledge rather than not sharing anything at all. I understand that article has great influence over you, but it did not do what you said it would. Do feel free to quote the precise wording if I am wrong, but I don't see it, but a careful explanation of what scientific theory is but hardly proving that it trumps scientific law.
Go back and read the article again, it certainly does indicate that a scientific theory is the "highest honor achievable in a scientific field", and if that particular article doesn't tickle your fancy there are thousands of others that all have the same conclusion. You are obviously uneducated in this field but feel free to carry on with your senseless rant. ::tippinghat::
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 12:52:14....but somehow you lack Christian love to ......
And you were just a couple of posts ago making the charge of another of personal attacks. Good show !!
: Alan Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 14:51:20
Go back and read the article again, it certainly does indicate that a scientific theory is the "highest honor achievable in a scientific field", and if that particular article doesn't tickle your fancy there are thousands of others that all have the same conclusion. You are obviously uneducated in this field but feel free to carry on with your senseless rant. ::tippinghat::
A bias article is hardly proof. Come on.
Theories are to be proven before they become law and yet somehow out of all of this for the sake of the evolution theory, the laws of science are not laws but the evolution theory is treated as such. While they admit they have changed the facts of the evolution theory down thru history, it just goes to show they are not there yet for it to be actually observed and proven to become law.
No matter how much senseless rant you guys send my way, the laws of science trumps scientific theories, not the other way around.
You guys want to believe in the evolution theory but you are never going to macroevolve ever.
But thanks to Stargate SG-1 , when the rapture comes, you guys will probably say that was proof of macroevolution, and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ was just a coincidence, mass hysteria, and all that.
The only reason you guys are taken in by that false science, is because you are not grounded in the word to know the truth regarding the generations of man as the genealogy in the Bible proves it. And the thing is, the Truth is coming and there is no denying Him when He appears because God will judge His House first at the pre great trib rapture event. That is His warning; not mine.
Since no lie can be of the truth, should you not take pause and reconsider His unchanging words over the ever changing words of fallible men in that false science, the evolution theory?
You cannot say you represent Him when you represent the lie of the evolution theory that denies Him and the scripture as truth. So how about stop playing games and start praying for help in seeing the truth in His words to expose the works of darkness that is the evolution theory.
Oh yeah. God is coming to judge His House first for why saved believers found in iniquity will be left behind because one has to attend the Marriage Supper in Heaven in sincerity and in truth.
1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
That is what God wants for the church to hold proper fellowship; you better believe that is what He will be doing when judging His House first; the parallel reason can be seen for those left behind.
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
So you decide this day whether to hold unto this lie in science you guys are defending or suffer the consequence for believing the lie that has caused many believers to not believe in the Bible and have walked away from Jesus Christ altogether. It is too bad you are blind to that evil, but you & God only knows why you take the words of men's over His words.
You guys need to repent or else.
: 4WD Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 14:54:08
And you were just a couple of posts ago making the charge of another of personal attacks. Good show !!
Correction in getting you to do the right thing, even a rebuke, is hardly the same for what you guys are doing for personal attacks about one's intelligence with no correction at all, lacking His love.
It gets to the point that it is hard to know if you are mockers that know the evolution theory is a lie or just seriously deceived, but God knows, and I think it is time in this discussion to call you on it to repent by going before that throne of grace for help to see the truth in His words in seeing the lie for what the evolution theory is in why it is a false science.
I'll be praying for you guys. I know it is on Him to deliver you from your sins and the lies that has blinded you so I turn you all over to Him in prayer. I know I cannot convince you, but I know in Whom I believe and so Jesus is Lord... the evolution theory is not.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 16:56:45
I know I cannot convince you, but I know in Whom I believe and so Jesus is Lord... the evolution theory is not.
When you say the evolution theory is not do you even know of what you are talking about because if you read these threads, word for word you would see that there is some differing of opinions among the evolutionery beliefs of many of the posters.
THERE IS NOT ONE that you can name posting that does not believe Jesus is Lord. Not one.
The differences lie in .. well shoot... I am at a loss for words. (Many here will be happy).
Hmmm... You have your scientific believing community that will talk and explain evolution, but that does not mean that they do not believe Jesus is Lord.
You have those that believe the earth is 6000 years old and from Adam unto today and at the end of this age will be the end of an era that Jesus has always been Lord over and it came to its natural end, and we will be judged and sent to our eternal rewards.
And you have people that fall in between. (I fall in between)
This is Grace Centered and we all are Christians. At least all of the regular posters. Jesus is our Lord. It is as simple as that.
Anything else is merely food for thought and stimulation for the mind.
You are out of line suggesting anything different.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 16:56:45Correction in getting you to do the right thing, even a rebuke, is hardly the same for what you guys are doing for personal attacks about one's intelligence with no correction at all, lacking His love.
Of course; us "guys" are issuing personal attacks; you are issuing loving correction. What self-righteous hypocrisy.
: LastCall Mon Dec 10, 2018 - 16:49:37
A bias article is hardly proof. Come on.
You are not interested in discussion here, if you were you wouldn't have formulated the above statement. The article is not biased, it represents the consensus by the scientific community everywhere.
You still have NO idea what a scientific theory is yet continue to make claims as though you do. ::frown::
Barbarian observes:
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words. That's not what scripture is for. As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.
Scripture disproves the evolution theory outright.
You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture. And that proves nothing at all.
Barbarian, regarding evolution:
But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.
Based on what?
Observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
The behemoth as described in Job chapter 40 is a dinosaur;
I know you want it to be so, but it isn't. Reptiles don't have external genitalia.
No creature has a tail like a cedar which is a tree.
"Tail" here is a euphemism as are the "stones" of the animal so described.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Jesus validated scripture that it cannot be broken.
YE creationism tries. It is vain to imply yom to means literal mornings and evenings in a passage that says there was no sun to have them.
Jesus even validated the sabbath day for why it was created for man to rest in and why as mentioned in scripture as the day God rested from the six days of creation.
Can you show us that if Jesus mentions something figurative in Genesis, that converts it to a literal history?
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Barbarian observes:
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation. New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact. What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution." As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.
Yep. As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones. They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."
How come you cannot comprehend that " changes in allele frequency within a species" also means and includes the creation of a new variation of that specie within that specie?
The singular of species is "species." And as you learned, macroevolution has been repeatedly observed. Your YE leaders just redefined it as "not real evolution." But there's a hitch. You see, the difference between families of organisms is larger than the difference between humans and chimps. So the new "adjustment" made by the ICR and "Answers in Genesis" put humans and apes in the same kind. Rock and a hard place.
Barbarian observes:
I'm a real scientist. Guess how I know you aren't. (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)
Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education.
That's because you're in way over your head, and have no idea what science is about. Your YE leaders told you a story, but you got ripped off badly.
Because the laws of science are proven
Nope.
You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.
Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#6382b3732fb1
A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True
https://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402
Where's the proof in science? There is none
http://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570
If you don't learn anything else about science, learn that.
Set your pride aside, and learn to accept it God's way. And you won't be troubled about it any longer.
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 05:21:01
You are not interested in discussion here, if you were you wouldn't have formulated the above statement. The article is not biased, it represents the consensus by the scientific community everywhere.
You still have NO idea what a scientific theory is yet continue to make claims as though you do. ::frown::
The example given in that article of the theory of gravity which can be observed is nowhere near the theory of evolution which cannot be observed.
And the law of science means it can be observed and proven time and time again.
That article trying to make the laws of science as if they are not really laws and yet treat the evolution theory as if it is law leaves you wanting for why you even believe in it in the first place.
In no way did that article has proven that scientific theory trumps the laws of science. You cannot even quote from that article to prove your prior statement.
Since you treat the word of God lightly which hasn't changed, it is hypocritical that you would take the everchanging facts of the evolution theory as truth.
: LastCall Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 08:24:04
The example given in that article of the theory of gravity which can be observed is nowhere near the theory of evolution which cannot be observed.
And the law of science means it can be observed and proven time and time again.
That article trying to make the laws of science as if they are not really laws and yet treat the evolution theory as if it is law leaves you wanting for why you even believe in it in the first place.
In no way did that article has proven that scientific theory trumps the laws of science. You cannot even quote from that article to prove your prior statement.
Since you treat the word of God lightly which hasn't changed, it is hypocritical that you would take the everchanging facts of the evolution theory as truth.
Your reading comprehension sucks, it's no wonder you've been easily duped into believing a fantasy.
From the article:
Theory vs LawNow that we understand the distinction between an English theory and a scientific theory, we can discuss the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. As previously stated,
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.
A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground.
A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.
Just A TheoryUnderstanding the difference between a theory and a law makes evident the ignorance of statements like "oh, that's just a theory" when attempting to diminish the integrity of a scientific theory like evolution. This argument doesn't make sense, as
a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 07:30:03
Barbarian observes:
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words. That's not what scripture is for. As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.
Yet you strove to deny the behemoth as a description of a dinosaur. That is your choice.
You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture. And that proves nothing at all.
When the evolution theory is revised, they change "facts". Birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been put in question because they believe dinosaurs evolved from birds now.
The evolution theory does not deal with facts nor truths; they only deal with assumptions on a finding making it as an "evidence" to be applied to their theory without proving it or any of it.
When the 1611 KJV was revised, no truth in that Bible was changed.
Not all modern KJV can say the same though like the 21st Century King James and the New King James, but the KJV and the authorized KJV are the same in maintaining truths at Bible Gateway.
It is because of the love of money is why many modern Bibles today are not keeping the truths in His words, due to copyrights demands to make a unique version to get a copyright.
And it is because of the love of money is why scientists are lying when the government only gives grants for proving the evolution theory. NASA did that when they lay claim to finding evidence of life on Mars per a meteorite that landed on earth. They got their grant, and that proof turned out to be not really proof and it is back on the shelf somewhere where they drudged it up from. Couldn't have been an amazing find in the first place when it was sitting on a shelf in storage until they needed to get a grant.
So basically, I accept that you do not believe in the scripture as it is plainly written because of the evolution theory even though you cannot observe macroevolution at all to prove it to any one.
Can you explain how a dinosaur carving of a Stegasaurus has been found in a ruin as well as drawings of dinosaurs in caves has been found if dinosaurs became extinct hundreds of millions of years before mankind came unto the scene to even see one? Maybe then you would look at the behemoth for what scripture describes it to be because errant Biblical scholars cannot refer in foot notes that the behemoth is a hippo or an elephant when neither one has a tail like the length of a tree which is what a cedar is. That is the cost of eduation does to Biblical scholars and Christians everywhere when they cannot see scripture plainly describing the behemoth as a dinosaur.
Jesus is coming soon. I suggest you read the KJV more with His wisdom rather than with the evolution theory's bifocles if you wish to be found abiding in Him and in His word of truths.
So many words from LastCall about science and so little knowledge of it. Better that one keeps quiet and be thought to be ignorant than to speak and remove all doubt.
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 08:26:45
Your reading comprehension sucks, it's no wonder you've been easily duped into believing a fantasy.
From the article:
Theory vs Law
Now that we understand the distinction between an English theory and a scientific theory, we can discuss the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.
Just A Theory
Understanding the difference between a theory and a law makes evident the ignorance of statements like "oh, that's just a theory" when attempting to diminish the integrity of a scientific theory like evolution. This argument doesn't make sense, as a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Few notes:
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural worldYou forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. A law is an observation.A law is a repeated observation of the same event
a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific fieldShould be: a
valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.
As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/
I only extracted a few paragraphs from the particular article, it did touch on the definitions in more detail.
Read the article, it's very good. https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b
: 4WD Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 09:01:25
So many words from LastCall about science and so little knowledge of it. Better that one keeps quiet and be thought to be ignorant than to speak and remove all doubt.
If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.
: LastCall Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 10:04:22
If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.
So do you believe the deception of "false science" was deliberately placed or do you simply believe that 99.9% of thousands of scientists are all wrong in their studies and research?
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 10:17:10
So do you believe the deception of "false science" was deliberately placed or do you simply believe that 99.9% of thousands of scientists are all wrong in their studies and research?
If you believe in a personal God and a personal Satan, then it all depends on who you blame for the false science.
The question calls for speculation.
The 99.9% (if at all a reliable number) just represents the group that fell for the deception.
: AVZ Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 09:14:42
Few notes:
a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
You forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
A law is an observation.
A law is a repeated observation of the same event
a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Should be: a valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.
As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/
Thank you for sharing.
The problem I am having with the definition of scientific theory as is, is that is not how I remembered it to mean as taught in school when a theory proven becomes law.
If you look online, at dictionary web site and universities, you will find some definition of microevolution as separate from macroevolution; some others will start blurring the lines, and a few will read as if they are saying the same thing.
Then you have evolutionists saying gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true and yet rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.
There was even one time when some one insisted in another forum that the Law of Biogenesis only meant life did not come from nothing; cutting off the rest of the definition that life comes from similar life.
Haeckel's fetus drawings were proven to be fraudulant and yet our educational books still carried it past that time it was proven fraud whereas now they are trying to prove that it was right all along.
It reminds me of what Hitler had written paraphrasing that if you say a lie often enough, and loud enough, then people will believe it to be true.
I do not see any discipline in science in regards to the evolution theory. So when I see the definition of a scientific theory as being applied to the evolution theory, it is good that you point out that it has to be a valid theory which the evolution theory never was one. For the way beleivers are hyping the evolution theory, you woud think it has become law.
Believers need to comprehend that there are lies in science, government, churches, and unfortunately, modern bibles such as Romans 8:26-27 because John 16:13 cites that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His own intercessions whereas the Romans 8:26-27 of that modern Bible would say otherwise, but the KJV maintains that truth whereas not even the groanings of the Holy Spirit can be uttered. So many believers today are assuming that tongues can also be for private use when Romans 8:26 in that modern bible they are using, they doubt what Jesus really meant that in John 16:13 of that same modern bible. We need His help to discern by His words as kept in the KJV to discern good & evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find.
It is hard to fathom why any believer would defend the evolution theory when they ought to know that it is because of the evolution theory that many doubt God's words and are offended whereby they believe not in Jesus Christ any more.
Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
That is what the evolution theory does as many beleivers not rooted in His words, fail to see the lie that the evolution theory is, and are made to look foolish for believing in the Bible and in Jesus.
So it seems just to say that the theory of evolution is not a valid theory at all, but even then only God can give the believers that err, ears to hear & eyes to see that truth in light of His words.
Prayer is needed here in order to stand against principalities in the hopes that God is peradventuring to recover some from this snare of the devil called the evolution theory.
Ephesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Thanks again for pointing out that a valid theory is the only one that has the highest honor achievable in the field of science, but one of these days, they just might change that definition too.
: LastCall Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 10:04:22
If you were rooted in His words, there would be no doubt in your mind that the evolution theory is a false science no matter how well educated they appear to be in that theoretical science that is false.
Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar... rofl rofl rofl
: 4WD Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 11:06:31
Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar... rofl rofl rofl
I quote this from one of your buddies' reference; "As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation."
Let me reword that for you. A scientific theory is simply a well substantiated explanation of some aspect OF the natural world BY OBSERVING the phenomenon OF that natural world.
The theory of gravity is a valid theory because it can be observed in the natural world. The theory of macroevolution cannot be observed for it to be a "valid" theory.
quoting AVZ below
"a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
You forgot to add something...it should be
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
A law is an observation.
A law is a repeated observation of the same event
a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
Should be: a valid theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field
There are no honors for invalid theories.
As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/is-darwinian-evolution-just-a-theory/
: 4WD Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 11:06:31
Of course you are not only an expert in the field of science you are also a preeminent theologian and biblical scholar... rofl rofl rofl
The reason we are at an impasse is that I see you as mocking or deceived whereas you see me as uneducated because you fail to comprehend that I do not see the evolution theory as a valid theory.
Wisdom comes from the Lord as we are to prove all things. Just because the evolution theory is a popular theory, that still does not make it a valid one, when it never was.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 25 Brethren, pray for us.
: LastCall Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 14:57:32
As things stand, evolution is not even a theory, its a hypothesis as the "facts" cannot be repeatedly observed and made subject to experiment.
It is indeed a theory
and also a fact.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 16:14:55
It is indeed a theory and also a fact.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
When in according to the scientific theory of observing a phenomenon in the natural world, the evolution theory as far as macroevolution, that phenomenon cannot be observed in the natural world.
Feel free to state something that I can observe as macroevolution happening in the natural world.
And I point out that any new species that is different and never before seen but yet the same species is not macroevolution; that is the Law of Biogenesis.
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 16:14:55
It is indeed a theory and also a fact.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
It is only a fact in the sense that it has to apply to present observations which must be subject to experiment.
What today's "facts" cannot establish is evidence for something that happened in the past, because past events cannot be observed or tested.
The reality is that even in case you would find evidence of macro-evolution today (which you don't), it still does not prove anything for the past.
Very simply because past events cannot be observed and tested.
Hence the evolution theory cannot be a theory because it misses the basic elements of a theory being a theory: observation and experiment.
: AVZ Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 22:45:27
It is only a fact in the sense that it has to apply to present observations which must be subject to experiment.
What today's "facts" cannot establish is evidence for something that happened in the past, because past events cannot be observed or tested.
The reality is that even in case you would find evidence of macro-evolution today (which you don't), it still does not prove anything for the past.
Very simply because past events cannot be observed and tested.
Hence the evolution theory cannot be a theory because it misses the basic elements of a theory being a theory: observation and experiment.
You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.
Barbarian observes:
It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words. That's not what scripture is for. As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.
Yet you strove to deny the behemoth as a description of a dinosaur.
Because, as you now see, it wasn't a dinosaur. The description in scripture clearly shows that it is not. I'll go with scripture.
That is your choice.
And it was your choice to ignore scripture in this matter. Fortunately, God doesn't judge you on that. You're confusing scripture with your modern revision of scripture. And that proves nothing at all.
When the evolution theory is revised, they change "facts".
Nope. Theories are revised as new facts become known. You have it backwards again.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been put in question because they believe dinosaurs evolved from birds now.
Nope. You were misled about that, too.
YE creationis does not deal with facts nor truths; they only deal with assumptions on a finding making it as an "evidence" to be applied to their revision of scripture without proving it or any of it.
So basically, you do not believe in the scripture as it is plainly written because of your modern revision of scripture even though macroevolution has been directly observed.
Can you explain how a dinosaur carving of a Stegasaurus has been found in a ruin
It's obviously not a stegosaurus. A tiny tail, lacking a thagomizer, makes that clear.
I suggest you read the Bible without injecting your own desires into it.
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 23:22:06
You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.
I wonder why you think that.
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org
: AVZ Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 01:46:43
I wonder why you think that.
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org
Are you sure you understand that dissentfromdarwin.org promotes? From that web site:
"Darwinian evolution should be fully and completely taught in public schools, and schools need to teach more about evolution, not less. Unfortunately, most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. This makes for bad science education. It doesn't teach students how to think, just what to think. Instead, schools should teach about both the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories and let students critically evaluate the arguments and evidence in this debate."I suspect that Barbarian might quite agree with that statement. And I didn't see anything in that web site that would support anything that you have presented here.
: Alan Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 23:22:06
You are not the scientific community that has deemed it a theory, take up your argument with them, although you won't get very far since your reasons are shortsighted and unrealistic.
If you do not follow the definition of a scientific theory for what is requires to be a valid theory, why is it that you cannot fathom that so called scientific community to be totally in error as seen by us?
If the Catholic Church teach a false doctrine and they lay claim to scripture as teaching it, what do you do? You go to scripture in reproving it.
If the scientific community teach a false science, and they lay claim to it by using the definition of a scientific theory as proof, what do you do? You make sure they quote the WHOLE definition for how a scientific theory is even to be considered by when it is only a valid one wherein that phenomenon can be observed in the natural world.
So you should not be harping the evolution theory at all as a fact nor as the truth. That is why I call it a false science that exists only in the realm of men's imaginations with no proof at all.
The scientific community is not in error, they most certainly do adhere to the definitions of scientific theories. The issue lies within those that display their lack of understanding.
: 4WD Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 05:41:51
Are you sure you understand that dissentfromdarwin.org promotes? From that web site:
"Darwinian evolution should be fully and completely taught in public schools, and schools need to teach more about evolution, not less. Unfortunately, most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. This makes for bad science education. It doesn't teach students how to think, just what to think. Instead, schools should teach about both the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories and let students critically evaluate the arguments and evidence in this debate."
I suspect that Barbarian might quite agree with that statement. And I didn't see anything in that web site that would support anything that you have presented here.
Well, I do not know about that web site as anything I should consider when I am still taking God's words over the evolution theory.
And as far as that web site goes, enjoy the world you are supporting in how the evolution theory makes believers not rooted in the word to be offended thereby NOT believing in the Bible over man's false science when they turn away from the Bible and Jesus altogether. Mockers that are atheists enjoy taking the light out of the eyes of Christians just as they enjoy you guys in being blind to how you are supporting that offense for why believers turn away from the Bible & Jesus altogether.
As long as evolution theory is taught in schools, there are no consequence for right & wrong, and bullying and abortion will be the norm as naturally selecting the weak for extinction as it is a dog eat dog world and this life is all that you have.
Can you imagine an atheist succeeding in turning a new convert that has been a murderer by convincing the evolution theory is a lie and laughs at him for not believing it to be true as you guys do? That now former believer may just kill that guy as naturally selecting his life to extinction.
You better believe God will hold that against you for causing believers not rooted in the word to stumble and fall.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
You know evolutionists as atheists are delighting that some believers are doing their work for them. You know babes in Christ are turning away from Him because of that evolution theory. No matter how you defend the faith, you are doing half of the work in making believers weak for atheistic evolutionists to finish the job in turning them away from Jesus Christ altogether.
Indeed, your laughing and belittling believers of their lack of education is their M.O. as if by doing so shames them and thus offending them for believing in the Bible & Him. So why is it yours?
I wonder why you think that.]
These people apparently agree with me and dont think its shortsighted and unrealistic: https://dissentfromdarwin.org
Comparing your numbers with the numbers from Project Steve, we find about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with a PhD in biology or a related discipline agree that Darwnian theory might not be correct. That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Feel free to do your own numbers. Just pick out the PhD biologists named "Steve" or some variant. Then compare to the number on the Steve-o-Meter. Do you now realize now why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YE creationism?
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:08:28
As long as evolution theory is taught in schools, there are no consequence for right & wrong, and bullying and abortion will be the norm as naturally selecting the weak for extinction as it is a dog eat dog world and this life is all that you have.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. ::aloneinclearlogic::
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:57:59
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. ::aloneinclearlogic::
I did not say that the schools had an agenda. I was only pointing to the effect for which the evolution theory being taught in our schools is the cause.
Clearly you are not comprehending my words as you are not comprehending the definition of a scientific theory requiring to be valid by observing the phenomenon of macroevolution in the natural world.
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:08:28You know evolutionists as atheists are delighting that some believers are doing their work for them. You know babes in Christ are turning away from Him because of that evolution theory.
If babes in Christ are turning away from Christ because of the theory of evolution it must be because of folks like you who teach the evolution and the gospel are incompatible. If the Barbarian has said anything in this discussion he has insisted that believing the theory of evolution or not is not a condition for salvation. It is people like you who seem to insist that accepting your interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is a necessary condition for believing the gospel, believing in Jesus and for being saved.
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:57:59
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. ::aloneinclearlogic::
And I was taught in gradeschool, 4rh, that we came from APES. At least my textbooks said it be so, complete with pictures ...and in a public school there was no discussion of where God would have fit into that mix. Just the millions and billions of years of the oldest ape morphing into a new, and yet newer until modern man came to be.... who started out with a tail.
I can assure you I am not descended from an ape. You can spin your theories all you want.... that will never cut it in my mind without solid proof of which there can be none.
: Ginger Rella Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 14:53:47
And I was taught in gradeschool, 4rh, that we came from APES. At least my textbooks said it be so, complete with pictures ...and in a public school there was no discussion of where God would have fit into that mix. Just the millions and billions of years of the oldest ape morphing into a new, and yet newer until modern man came to be.... who started out with a tail.
I can assure you I am not descended from an ape. You can spin your theories all you want.... that will never cut it in my mind without solid proof of which there can be none.
Not apes, primates with whom we share common traits. Not all primates are apes or humans, but all humans and apes are primates.
: 4WD Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 12:33:18
If babes in Christ are turning away from Christ because of the theory of evolution it must be because of folks like you who teach the evolution and the gospel are incompatible. If the Barbarian has said anything in this discussion he has insisted that believing the theory of evolution or not is not a condition for salvation. It is people like you who seem to insist that accepting your interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is a necessary condition for believing the gospel, believing in Jesus and for being saved.
I am sure you would like to believe that to ease your conscience but that is not what I have been seeing in the forums nor as a result of evolution theory being taught as a fact in our education.
Back in the early 1990's when I was working with a son of a pastor, he told me that his father does not believe in God because of the evolution theory. This is a man that went through "education" in getting a college degree but because he was now preaching, he did not care to quit to get another career. Preaching from the pulpit was now just a means to support his family rather than a service to the Lord.
There are some Bibles out there with footnotes from scholars citing that the behemoth was a hippo or an elephant in Job 40. That is the effect that the evolution theory has in our education system.
Anyway, we agree to disagree since only God can show you your error in your life. I know I cannot convince you, but I thank Him that I know the truth and that truth has set me free from the lies in the world.
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 15:54:16
Not apes, primates with whom we share common traits. Not all primates are apes or humans, but all humans and apes are primates.
Alan,
At what point in this evolutionary theory... because I do not believe it has been proven without doubt... at least not to me... that humans as we know them having come from their predicesor primates would you figure God finally said.
"It is time for Us to interact with man."???
Because if you believe what we are told and taught He did, and man was given the chance for eternity when our primate ancestors were not.
So... there is a master plan. Just wonder how God may have decided to enact it.
Of course... any thought of Eve having come from Adam... or Adam being formed of the dust of the ground... or God making man in their image is shot.... Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis 1 and 2 had to have gotten that wrong.....
: The Barbarian Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:44:40
Comparing your numbers with the numbers from Project Steve, we find about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with a PhD in biology or a related discipline agree that Darwnian theory might not be correct. That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Feel free to do your own numbers. Just pick out the PhD biologists named "Steve" or some variant. Then compare to the number on the Steve-o-Meter. Do you now realize now why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YE creationism?
You can't do reliable math on these numbers for a hole bunch of reasons.
First and foremost the people with the name "Steve" or a variant are not representative for the whole group.
If your proposition would hold any truth, then why have nationwide elections? You could simply ask all the people with the name "John" to vote, and then apply the outcome to the whole nation.
Secondly, both lists do not make any reference or claim to the position of those who did not register.
Even if all the registered people with the name "Steve" would vote negative, it does not mean that therefore all people with the name "Steve" have a similar position.
In fact, the group that did not register could potentially be much larger than the group registered people.
Thirdly, both lists are biased lists.
In case of Dissent from Darwinism, the lists contains only those who file objections against Darwinism. So 100% of the registered people dissent.
In case of Project Steve, the list contains only those who agree with Darwinism. So 100% of the registered people agree.
Both institutes did not ask people of the opposite position to register.
Project Steve specifically asked only the people who agreed with Darwinism and who have the name "Steve" to register.
It therefore does not have any records of those with the name "Steve" and do not agree.
Again, that group could potentially be much larger.
Finally, the lists are not to be used as a mathematical tool to determine a number.
That's clearly stated in the link you posted. I guess you have overlooked that part.
I posted the link in response with Alan's claim that doubting Darwinism was shortsighted and unrealistic.
The fact is however that even within the scientific community there is doubt towards Darwinism, and these scientists are respected members of the community.
So to keep it brief in closure.
Even within the secular scientific community there is a large group of scientists who dissent from Darwinism.
The size of this group or how many "Steves" it contains it not relevant in any shape or form. Truth is never determined by majority!
Alan's appeal to objections being "shortsighted and unrealistic" is in fact shortsighted and unrealistic itself because there is hard evidence that within the recognized scientific community objections are considered intelligible and realistic.
But you can always resort to the declaration that all scientists on the Dissent from Darwinism list are nut cases, or do not have proper scientific degrees, or are perhaps deceived.
But if you do not do that, then you have to take their objections as valid and worthy of investigation...because isn't that what science is supposed to be all about?
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 15:54:16
Not apes, primates with whom we share common traits. Not all primates are apes or humans, but all humans and apes are primates.
Don't try to beat the bush here.
The evolution theory clearly claims man evolved from apes.
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 15:54:16
Not apes, primates with whom we share common traits. Not all primates are apes or humans, but all humans and apes are primates.
No facts (unless you use alternative facts) prove that we are descendants of non-human primates.
You know this and I know this.
I did not say that the schools had an agenda. I was only pointing to the effect for which the evolution theory being taught in our schools is the cause.
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Clearly you are not comprehending what's actually going on as you are not comprehending what a scientific theory actualy is. The observation of macroevolution is one of the many confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Theories, as you now realize are stronger than laws.
Don't try to beat the bush here.
The evolution theory clearly claims man evolved from apes.
Rather the theory shows that humans and apes had a common ancestor. No ape living today is an ancestor of humans.
Humans are apes, in terms of biology. Chimps and humans are an ingroup with the rest of apes an outgroup. But neither chimps nor humans evolved from the other.
No facts (unless you use alternative facts) prove that we are descendants of non-human primates.
Facts that indicate humans and other apes have a common ancestor:
1.Anatomy. Humans have all the features common to apes. Huxley embarrassed Owen in a debate, using his own anatomical data to show that chimps have no features not found in humans and vice versa.
2. Genetic data, showing relationships among primates, making chimps and humans closer relatives than either is to any other apes.
3. Fossil record, showing numerous transitional forms between hominoid primates and humans. (As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise showed)
4. Chromosomal studies showing that humans have a chromosome fusion that separates us from other apes.
You can't do reliable math on these numbers for a hole bunch of reasons.
First and foremost the people with the name "Steve" or a variant are not representative for the whole group.
Turns out, you can. About 1% of Americans have "Steve" or some variant of the name.
If your proposition would hold any truth, then why have nationwide elections?
United States Constitution.
Secondly, both lists do not make any reference or claim to the position of those who did not register.
Both are just lists of people who care enough to put their names on a list. But there's a reason your list has only 0.3% as many PhD biologists as the Project Steve list; very few people familiar with the data doubt Darwinian evolution.
In case of Dissent from Darwinism, the lists contains only those who file objections against Darwinism. So 100% of the registered people dissent.
In case of Project Steve, the list contains only those who agree with Darwinism. So 100% of the registered people agree.
Yep. The important metric is that biologists are about 300 times more likely to accept Darwinian theory than to reject it.
This is why your bandwagon argument is such a loser for you.
I posted the link in response with Alan's claim that doubting Darwinism was shortsighted and unrealistic.
The tiny percentage of biologists who doubt it, pretty much establishes that.
Even within the secular scientific community there is a large group of scientists who dissent from Darwinism.
No way that 0.3% is a "large group."
Truth is never determined by majority!
Another reason your argument is faulty.
But you can always resort to the declaration that all scientists on the Dissent from Darwinism list are nut cases, or do not have proper scientific degrees, or are perhaps deceived.
No need to call them nut cases, although perhaps some are. Most are, just like Dr. Kurt Wise, more inclined to believe their personal interpretation of scripture before scientific data. That's not crazy, although it's in error.
But if you do not do that, then you have to take their objections as valid and worthy of investigation...because isn't that what science is supposed to be all about?
No one does research to find out if the Earth is round, either. Although some creationists do claim that it's flat.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 01:12:53
Both are just lists of people who care enough to put their names on a list. But there's a reason your list has only 0.3% as many PhD biologists as the Project Steve list; very few people familiar with the data doubt Darwinian evolution.
Yep. The important metric is that biologists are about 300 times more likely to accept Darwinian theory than to reject it.
This is why your bandwagon argument is such a loser for you.
The tiny percentage of biologists who doubt it, pretty much establishes that.
No way that 0.3% is a "large group."
Useless argumentation and not worth further debate.
You know what, why not ask all scientists called "Ferenc" to sign the pro-Darwin list.
After which I can then conclude that the math swings in my favor and 100% is a very large group.
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 18:26:15I am sure you would like to believe that to ease your conscience
I have no need to ease my conscience on this issue. I see no conflict between the present cosmological explanation of the history of the universe and the Genesis account of creation.
: LastCallBack in the early 1990's when I was working with a son of a pastor, he told me that his father does not believe in God because of the evolution theory.
That could only be because people like you insisted that the Genesis account of creation had to be taken as a literal explanation and to do otherwise was to deny the existence of God.
: LastCallThis is a man that went through "education" in getting a college degree but because he was now preaching, he did not care to quit to get another career. Preaching from the pulpit was now just a means to support his family rather than a service to the Lord.
It that really was true then the man had a lot more problems that his "education" in college. He had a problem with basic truth and morality.
: LastCallAnyway, we agree to disagree since only God can show you your error in your life. I know I cannot convince you, but I thank Him that I know the truth and that truth has set me free from the lies in the world.
It seems to me that you are not free from the lies of the world; rather you are caged in the myths perpetrated by misguided theologians. And in your case LastCall, the Genesis account of creation is perhaps the least of the misguiding.
: The Barbarian Tue Dec 11, 2018 - 23:49:38...
It's obviously not a stegosaurus. A tiny tail, lacking a thagomizer, makes that clear.
...
"Thagomizer." ::noworries:: rofl I forgot all about that label. rofl
(http://www.dinochecker.com/img/faq/thagomizer.gif)
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 01:02:14
Facts that indicate humans and other apes have a common ancestor:
1.Anatomy. Humans have all the features common to apes. Huxley embarrassed Owen in a debate, using his own anatomical data to show that chimps have no features not found in humans and vice versa.
2. Genetic data, showing relationships among primates, making chimps and humans closer relatives than either is to any other apes.
3. Fossil record, showing numerous transitional forms between hominoid primates and humans. (As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise showed)
4. Chromosomal studies showing that humans have a chromosome fusion that separates us from other apes.
Once again, conjecture not proof.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 05:41:46
Once again, conjecture not proof.
Of course not proof; but the evidence is overwhelming if you bother to consider it rationally. In the same way, there is no proof for God, but the evidence is overwhelming if you bother to really consider it rationally.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is what I gather so far.
Barbarian et. al. are saying that it took billions of years for God to create everything from a singularity into what all is there that exist now. And they are saying that, evolution still is on the works. That there will still be new creatures or species to come as they are created in time, if not, a more advanced kind of already existing species or creature, per their evolution theory.
If scientist are so intelligent as to predict things, may I ask, what do they predict concerning these new creatures or species or of these advanced version of existing species or creatures? If they were so intelligent as to come up with what they theories, explaining what happened in the past billions of years ago, I would presume that they could easily come up with a prediction of what will happen in the future concerning evolution of life forms.
They claim to have come to know the very very distant past. And if that were true, that certainly is a great achievement, if not, miraculous so to speak. But knowing the future is even greater, don't you think so? They say that evolution of creatures and species is a natural process and so naturally occurs and will come to pass. So the future I guess, if it will be considered evolution, will likewise be naturally occurring in time, according to the natural laws. So, I don't see any reason why these brilliant minds cannot come up with a theory on this. If they point to evidences that leads them to the past, do they not have evidences that lead to the future?
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 18:26:15
Anyway, we agree to disagree since only God can show you your error in your life. I know I cannot convince you, but I thank Him that I know the truth and that truth has set me free from the lies in the world.
Several have said and adhere to the belief that the method in which God created is not a salvation issue, the critical point is that He did create all things. Do you agree with that statement?
Granting for the sake of argument, that these evolutionist are correct. That man evolved from apes. And that the Genesis creation account is as they interpret it.
May I ask their interpretation of this scriptures:
Gen. 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
It is obvious that they take this as figurative than is literal. So, let's grant that for now, for the sake of argument. So, may I know what is your interpretation of that passage?
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 07:07:49
Several have said and adhere to the belief that the method in which God created is not a salvation issue, the critical point is that He did create all things. Do you agree with that statement?
I do not believe this because
God created. ALL. The hows and the whys are irrelevant.
But
When man, as we know him, entered the creation mix, then salvation was/is the issue.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 07:07:49
Several have said and adhere to the belief that the method in which God created is not a salvation issue, the critical point is that He did create all things. Do you agree with that statement?
Lets for a second assume that Darwinian Evolution is a deception of Satan.
You would then be claiming that those who abandon Gods Word and adhere to a lie of Satan, and in effect even help to distribute that lie, may not jeopardize their salvation.
And what if the result of spreading Satan's lie is that people cease to believe in God? Would that not mean that the person who contributed to spreading the lie would also have contributed to growing secularism?
Yes, I know I am speculating, but so is your question.
Several people may claim its not a matter of salvation, but that doesn't make it true.
: Ginger Rella Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 08:01:38
The hows and the whys are irrelevant.
The how's and the why's are in fact of massive importance.
You do realize that those who support a Darwinian Evolution method also support that there was death in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve were removed.
They also declare parts of scripture as metaphorical as long as it serves a scientific theory or observation.
They deny a global flood.
These things have massive theological implications.
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 07:05:08
Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is what I gather so far.
Barbarian et. al. are saying that it took billions of years for God to create everything from a singularity into what all is there that exist now. And they are saying that, evolution still is on the works. That there will still be new creatures or species to come as they are created in time, if not, a more advanced kind of already existing species or creature, per their evolution theory.
If scientist are so intelligent as to predict things, may I ask, what do they predict concerning these new creatures or species or of these advanced version of existing species or creatures? If they were so intelligent as to come up with what they theories, explaining what happened in the past billions of years ago, I would presume that they could easily come up with a prediction of what will happen in the future concerning evolution of life forms.
They claim to the very very distant past. And if that were true, that certainly is a great achievement, if not, miraculous so to speak. But knowing the future is even greater, don't you think so? They say that evolution of creatures and species is a natural process and so naturally occurs and will come to pass. So the future I guess, if it will be considered evolution, will likewise be naturally occurring in time, according to the natural laws. So, I don't see any reason why these brilliant minds cannot come up with a theory on this. If they point to evidences that leads them to the past, do they not have evidences that lead to the future?
Those predictions are difficult. Environmental changes are the most common causes of changes within species and since we cannot predict with reasonable accuracy those changes to the environment, it becomes next to impossible to predict the evolution of species.
The dinosaurs and crurotarsans ruled the earth for 200 million years. Luck is a big part of their succession and bad luck was the reason for their extinction.
: AVZ Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 08:02:38
Lets for a second assume that Darwinian Evolution is a deception of Satan.
You would then be claiming that those who abandon Gods Word and adhere to a lie of Satan, and in effect even help to distribute that lie, may not jeopardize their salvation.
And what if the result of spreading Satan's lie is that people cease to believe in God? Would that not mean that the person who contributed to spreading the lie would also have contributed to growing secularism?
Yes, I know I am speculating, but so is your question.
Several people may claim its not a matter of salvation, but that doesn't make it true.
The same could be said for all of scripture, if you don't believe that water baptism (ex) is fundamental to salvation you could be spreading the lies of satan's deception.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 00:54:38
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Then you observation as a scientist is seriously flawed. Like screening for guns and knives before entering schools is a positive sign of violet crimes declining in society. And still there is an increase to shootings in public school.
I dare you to go to a public school that had a shooting and tell them that. Things have gone progressively worse in society, brother.
Clearly you are not comprehending what's actually going on as you are not comprehending what a scientific theory actualy is. The observation of macroevolution is one of the many confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Theories, as you now realize are stronger than laws.
Explain natural selection as you understand it; because selecting the weak and the vulnerable to extinction pretty much shows that if any new creature was actually slowly macroevolving, they would not have a chance to survive and so it is an oxymoron by common sense alone.
I would have to say per your postings that you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative with no substance to back it up. You choose and select and conveniently omit both the scientific theory for it to be valid wherein the phenomenon of macroevolution has to be observed in the natural world and how scripture opposes the evolution theory when the behemoth is a dinosaur that God made with mankind in Job chapter 40 and yet supposedly, mankind could not be able to describe one when dinosaurs has been extinct hundreds of millions of years before mankind came unto the scene.
I believe the genealogy in the Bible and that man was created in the image of God because Jesus testified that He was the God that men had seen in the O.T.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/jesus-is-the-god-men-had-seen-in-the-o-t/
And there has been cave drawings of dinosaurs as well as a stone carving of a Stegasaurus in an ancient ruins and so again, how can man do that unless dinosaurs lived with mankind?
Here is a link to a site of an evolutionist vainly debunking the evidence without considering lack of room to carve the spikes on the tail and the barely seen lowering neck and head was lowered in that frame to fit the dinosaur in.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/creature-carved-angkor-temple-wall-domestic-dinosaur-009546
So people that want to believe in the evolution theory will continue to live in denial as you are doing. It takes greater faith to believe in the evolution theory than it does to believe in Jesus Christ, but one has to be rooted in the word and relying on Him as your Good Shepherd to see the truth in His words to expose the works of darkness in that false science that is macroevolution.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 07:07:49
Several have said and adhere to the belief that the method in which God created is not a salvation issue, the critical point is that He did create all things. Do you agree with that statement?
For those that believe that it is not a salvation issue, unfortunately, that is not the effect I see happening when the evolution theory had turned many away for believing in the Bible and Jesus Christ altogether and therefore the cause for why it is preventing many sinners from believing in the Bible & Jesus altoether, and so it is a salvation issue to unbelievers in that respect.
The former beievers are still saved because He abides in them still as per 2 Timothy 2:13 but that call given to even former believers having His seal is to depart from iniquity 2 Timothy 2:18-21.
I am glad that some believe in Him still regardless of believing in the lies of the evolution theory, but I have seen the effect whereby I have to wonder where believers will satnd on judgment day for supporting that lie that is causing so many believers to stumble and could very well shame seekers for even thinking about the Bible & Jesus Christ.
Were we not warned not to cause a brother to sumble? How is it that when mockers that are atheists that their M.O. to belittle and laugh at believers is found by believers doing the same to believers that believe in the Bible and Jesus's own words over the evolution theory?
How is it that they are pushing the evolution theory rather than trying to prove it by the Bible here if that was their goal to keep believers from not believing in Jesus Christ any more?
But no. They laugh and belittle in an attempt to shame and offend me for believing in the Bible over the evolution theory. They do protest way too much.
I reckon my point is that actions speak louder and their words even louder when obviously they are not in agreement about that critical point you asked me if I would agree with.
They are not being righteous in what they are doing in this forum, and I cannot agree when it has caused brothers to stumble and has to be keeping sinners from even seeking God.
If they knock it off and start posting threads on explaining why they still believe in Jesus Christ & the evolution theory to appeal to those who has stopped believing in Him altogether, then that would switch teir M.O. from what the atheists are doing to ministering to the lost; but if they keep attacking believers for not believing in the evolution theory, then they can be no agreement with them.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Their zeal and glee is more towards shaming believers for not believing in the evolution theory than caring about those whom have stopped believing because of the evolution theory.
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
"Thagomizer." ::noworries:: rofl I forgot all about that label. rofl
"The Far Side" has a big readership among scientists. "Thagomizer" is now the preferred term in the literature.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 08:48:15
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 07:05:08
Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is what I gather so far.
Barbarian et. al. are saying that it took billions of years for God to create everything from a singularity into what all is there that exist now. And they are saying that, evolution still is on the works. That there will still be new creatures or species to come as they are created in time, if not, a more advanced kind of already existing species or creature, per their evolution theory.
If scientist are so intelligent as to predict things, may I ask, what do they predict concerning these new creatures or species or of these advanced version of existing species or creatures? If they were so intelligent as to come up with what they theories, explaining what happened in the past billions of years ago, I would presume that they could easily come up with a prediction of what will happen in the future concerning evolution of life forms.
They claim to the very very distant past. And if that were true, that certainly is a great achievement, if not, miraculous so to speak. But knowing the future is even greater, don't you think so? They say that evolution of creatures and species is a natural process and so naturally occurs and will come to pass. So the future I guess, if it will be considered evolution, will likewise be naturally occurring in time, according to the natural laws. So, I don't see any reason why these brilliant minds cannot come up with a theory on this. If they point to evidences that leads them to the past, do they not have evidences that lead to the future?
Those predictions are difficult. Environmental changes are the most common causes of changes within species and since we cannot predict with reasonable accuracy those changes to the environment, it becomes next to impossible to predict the evolution of species.
The dinosaurs and crurotarsans ruled the earth for 200 million years. Luck is a big part of their succession and bad luck was the reason for their extinction.
I thought you would say that.
Why, are Environmental changes not according to the laws of nature which scientists claim to have a great amount of knowledge of at this present day? So, how is it now that, this knowledge seems to become suddenly insignificant and rendered useless?
How about a hypothesis then. Was there ever a hypothesis made regarding this?
For scientist to know the distant distant past is truly a very very difficult thing to achieve. Yet they claim to have achieved that. But it seems, that not one could do such an achievement when it comes to the future.
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today, as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And what happened to Eve? Scriptures say "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree
desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate." Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
In the beginning, the deception was about knowledge. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge. Truly, as scriptures says, knowledge puffs up the man. And that, as we had seen from the very beginning, it brings destruction.
I think we ought to read and learn from scriptures. And learning, must we allow ourselves to fall into the same trap? God forbid.
Barbarian et. al. are saying that it took billions of years for God to create everything from a singularity into what all is there that exist now.
As Augustine pointed out, it took an instant for God to create things. And after that, everything came about because of that initial creation. It took billions of years to create you, for example.
And they are saying that, evolution still is on the works.
We still see it working.
That there will still be new creatures or species to come as they are created in time,
Yep. Directly observed. Even most professional creationists admit that speciation is a fact.
If scientist are so intelligent as to predict things, may I ask, what do they predict concerning these new creatures or species or of these advanced version of existing species or creatures?
Depends on selective pressures, which are hard to predict as climate changes. However, the prediction that Hawthorn flies would diverge to form a population that lived on hawthorns, and another population would become adapted to apples, has been verified. The second population is an incipient species, no longer interbreeding with the original.
Predictions of evolutionary change in stickleback fishes introduced to new environments has been verified.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/fish.html
If they were so intelligent as to come up with what they theories, explaining what happened in the past billions of years ago, I would presume that they could easily come up with a prediction of what will happen in the future concerning evolution of life forms.
Precisely what changes depends on the mutations that appear. So it's difficult to say what mutations will happen, but it's not hard to predict changes in phenotype.
It only seems miraculous if you don't understand how we know.
If they point to evidences that leads them to the past, do they not have evidences that lead to the future?
Yep.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 08:51:48
The same could be said for all of scripture, if you don't believe that water baptism (ex) is fundamental to salvation you could be spreading the lies of satan's deception.
True. Thats why it is important to remain as close as possible to what scripture says, and do not get yourself distracted by things not coming from scripture.
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:29:43
Those predictions are difficult. Environmental changes are the most common causes of changes within species and since we cannot predict with reasonable accuracy those changes to the environment, it becomes next to impossible to predict the evolution of species.
The dinosaurs and crurotarsans ruled the earth for 200 million years. Luck is a big part of their succession and bad luck was the reason for their extinction.
I thought you would say that.
Why, are Environmental changes not according to the laws of nature which scientists claim to have a great amount of knowledge of at this present day? So, how is it now that, this knowledge seems to become suddenly insignificant and rendered useless?
How about a hypothesis then. Was there ever a hypothesis made regarding this?
For scientist to know the distant distant past is truly a very very difficult thing to achieve. Yet they claim to have achieved that. But it seems, that not one could do such an achievement when it comes to the future.
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power? Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today, as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And what happened to Eve? Scriptures say "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate." Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
In the beginning, the deception was about knowledge. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge. Truly, as scriptures says, knowledge puffs up the man. And that, as we had seen from the very beginning, it brings destruction.
I think we ought to read and learn from scriptures. And learning, must we allow ourselves to fall into the same trap? God forbid.
It's difficult to predict exactly when an asteroid might contact the earth and destroy life as we know it for multiple decades.
You are demanding too much from science.
: LastCall Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:15:20
For those that believe that it is not a salvation issue, unfortunately, that is not the effect I see happening when the evolution theory had turned many away for believing in the Bible and Jesus Christ altogether and therefore the cause for why it is preventing many sinners from believing in the Bible & Jesus altoether, and so it is a salvation issue to unbelievers in that respect.
The former beievers are still saved because He abides in them still as per 2 Timothy 2:13 but that call given to even former believers having His seal is to depart from iniquity 2 Timothy 2:18-21.
I am glad that some believe in Him still regardless of believing in the lies of the evolution theory, but I have seen the effect whereby I have to wonder where believers will satnd on judgment day for supporting that lie that is causing so many believers to stumble and could very well shame seekers for even thinking about the Bible & Jesus Christ.
Were we not warned not to cause a brother to sumble? How is it that when mockers that are atheists that their M.O. to belittle and laugh at believers is found by believers doing the same to believers that believe in the Bible and Jesus's own words over the evolution theory?
How is it that they are pushing the evolution theory rather than trying to prove it by the Bible here if that was their goal to keep believers from not believing in Jesus Christ any more?
But no. They laugh and belittle in an attempt to shame and offend me for believing in the Bible over the evolution theory. They do protest way too much.
I reckon my point is that actions speak louder and their words even louder when obviously they are not in agreement about that critical point you asked me if I would agree with.
They are not being righteous in what they are doing in this forum, and I cannot agree when it has caused brothers to stumble and has to be keeping sinners from even seeking God.
If they knock it off and start posting threads on explaining why they still believe in Jesus Christ & the evolution theory to appeal to those who has stopped believing in Him altogether, then that would switch teir M.O. from what the atheists are doing to ministering to the lost; but if they keep attacking believers for not believing in the evolution theory, then they can be no agreement with them.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Their zeal and glee is more towards shaming believers for not believing in the evolution theory than caring about those whom have stopped believing because of the evolution theory.
1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Instead of answering the question you paste yet another wall of text?
Yes or no, do varied beliefs in the creation account affect our salvation?
Why, are Environmental changes not according to the laws of nature
So far, they are. But since causes are not always predictable, environmental changes will not always be predictable. Your day goes according to the laws of nature, but is never fully predictable.
[quote which scientists claim to have a great amount of knowledge of at this present day?[/quote]
You have a great amount of knowledge about your home, and town and job. Does that mean your day is fully predictable? On the other hand, predictions of elephants evolving smaller tusks in response to poaching have come true. Predictions of antibiotic resistance made by Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, have been verified.
Predictions of evolution in lizards moved to a new island in the Adriatic were verified.
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today, as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Yep. Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive.
And what happened to Eve?
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:
You should read and learn from scriptures. Don't let Satan use part of the truth to deceive you.
For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?
The same could be said for all of scripture, if you don't believe that water baptism (ex) is fundamental to salvation you could be spreading the lies of satan's deception.
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman,Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Luke 23: [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. ... [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
I doubt if God spreads the lies of Satan's deception.
For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?
As far as God is concerned, it doesn't matter what of many possible sides you take, so long as you love Him and love other people, and seek to serve him. The Bible takes no sides on this question. And there are forms of creationism that are consistent with the Bible and with the evidence.
: Ginger Rella Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:02:28
For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?
That is my take on it, I believe God created in one fashion where others believe something entirely different but at the end of the day the important part to believe is that God did it, how is not as important.
For those that believe that it is not a salvation issue, unfortunately, that is not the effect I see happening when the evolution theory had turned many away for believing in the Bible and Jesus Christ altogether
Since evolution is consistent with Christian belief, that's not an issue. But when YE creationists (not all of them, mind) say that you must accept their new doctrines to be saved, that does turn people away from God.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].
St. Augustine of Hippo
The Literal Meaning of GenesisHere is the testimony of a Christian, a graduate of the ICR graduate school, and a former YE creationist:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
The erroneous claim that one must believe in YE creationism to be a Christian is preventing many sinners from believing in the Bible & Jesus altoether, and so it is a salvation issue to unbelievers in that respect. You may not intend to drive people from God, but if you tell people that Christians must believe the new doctrine of YE creationism, that is what you are doing.
This is the real damage YE creationism does to His Church.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:48:43
Instead of answering the question you paste yet another wall of text?
Yes or no, do varied beliefs in the creation account affect our salvation?
For those that believe in the evolution theory and in Jesus Christ still? No. They will not lose their salvation.
Will it affect their being received by the Bridegroom to the Marriage Supper in Heaven? Yes. There will be a loss of that first inheritance of being that vessel unto honor in His House, thus becoming a castaway.
Just as that fellowship in church has to be held in sincerity and in truth, and the same will definitely be true for how He will hold fellowship at that Marriage Supper table in Heaven. Note verse 8
1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
That is why many believes will not be ready for the Bridegroom when He comes; they will not lose their salvation, but they will be cast away into the bed of the great tribulation to be received later on as vessels unto dishonor in His House for not departing from the lie of the evolution theory whose works denies Him & His words plainly enough for why believers turn away from Him.
Excommunication by the church will mirror the same effect when God judges His House at the pre great trib rapture event.
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.....12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
So I am asking you to go before that throne of grace and ask Jesus Christ for help to either confirm the evolution theory by His words or to reprove the evolution theory by His words ( you will need His help to stop rationalizing what is plainly written ) .
2 Corinthians 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Barbarian observes:
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Then you observation as a scientist is seriously flawed.
Well, let's take a look...
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.png)
Nope. You've been very badly misled about that. Let's see what the abortion rate is doing...
(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20170121_WOC633_0.png)
You're way off there, too. So if there's an effect, evolution teaching reduces violence and abortion.
: LastCall Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:19:55
For those that believe in the evolution theory and in Jesus Christ still? No. They will not lose their salvation.
Will it affect their being received by the Bridegroom to the Marriage Supper in Heaven? Yes. There will be a loss of that first inheritance of being that vessel unto honor in His House, thus becoming a castaway.
What about other irreconcilable opinions in scripture? People more often than not disagree on matters of theology. Are all those people under the same scrutiny?
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:45:44
It's difficult to predict exactly when an asteroid might contact the earth and destroy life as we know it for multiple decades.
You are demanding too much from science.
It is difficult to know exactly what happened in the distant distant past, even billions of years, sir.
Scientists is demanding too much from us to begin with, don't you think?
So, to react accordingly, is just fair, I guess.
It is difficult to know exactly what happened in the distant distant past, even billions of years, sir.
Some things. But it's remarkable how many things we can know, based on the evidence left behind in the rocks. We can know which dinosaurs were warm-blooded, which whales were aquatic and which were marine, how dinosaurs breathed, whether dinosaurs were more closely related to lizards or birds, and many, many other things. Would you like to learn how we know these things?
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:35:47
If scientist are so intelligent as to predict things, may I ask, what do they predict concerning these new creatures or species or of these advanced version of existing species or creatures?
Depends on selective pressures, which are hard to predict as climate changes. However, the prediction that Hawthorn flies would diverge to form a population that lived on hawthorns, and another population would become adapted to apples, has been verified. The second population is an incipient species, no longer interbreeding with the original.
Predictions of evolutionary change in stickleback fishes introduced to new environments has been verified.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/fish.html
Depends? So, bottom line, is you are saying it is very difficult to predict, even with all the scientific knowledge of the natural laws which govern the universe that you scientists have. So, that's it with the future...
If they point to evidences that leads them to the past, do they not have evidences that lead to the future?
Yep.
So tell us, what will become of man in the future? Any scientific calculation on that? Say at least in the next 1000 years, then the next 10,000 years, then the next 100,000 years, then the next 1,000,000 years, then the next, 1,000,000,000 years?
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 09:54:20Why, are Environmental changes not according to the laws of nature
So far, they are. But since causes are not always predictable, environmental changes will not always be predictable. Your day goes according to the laws of nature, but is never fully predictable.
You said "causes are not always predictable". Is that a law then or what?
Have you taken into account what you say here in dealing with the past?
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
That is not the question sir. Let me ask that again. Do you believe that Satan have supernatural power?
Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today, as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
So, you believe.
Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Yep. Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive.
Good to know you see that.
And what happened to Eve?
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:
Here's what happened to Eve, before that sir.
Gen.3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
You apparently did not comment on this sir (see below). It makes me wonder.
Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
In the beginning, the deception was about knowledge. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge. Truly, as scriptures says, knowledge puffs up the man. And that, as we had seen from the very beginning, it brings destruction.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 12:40:35It is difficult to know exactly what happened in the distant distant past, even billions of years, sir.
Some things. But it's remarkable how many things we can know, based on the evidence left behind in the rocks. We can know which dinosaurs were warm-blooded, which whales were aquatic and which were marine, how dinosaurs breathed, whether dinosaurs were more closely related to lizards or birds, and many, many other things. Would you like to learn how we know these things?
What exactly happened in the past only God knows sir. One who says that he knows what happened there is acting like being God. One can only guess at best sir, even the most brilliant minds of all of humanity combined.
You asked "Would you like to learn how we know these things?".
I think it's best that you keep those to yourself sir. I'd rather spend my time studying God's words in scriptures sir. Try that instead, I would have to suggest.
What exactly happened in the past only God knows sir.
The notion that we can't know anything we didn't personally see happen is demonstrably false.
One who says that he knows what happened there is acting like being God.
No. It's acting like a human. God gave us the evidence and the intelligence and curiosity to understand it.
One can only guess at best sir, even the most brilliant minds of all of humanity combined.
Nope. We can use evidence to learn about things we did not see happen.
(Barbarian offers to show how we know those things)
I think it's best that you keep those to yourself sir.
Ignorance is no sin. But it's turning your back on His creation.
I'd rather spend my time studying God's words in scriptures sir.
I've been reading His word for nearly 63 years. He seems to favor not being ignorant. My observation is that the more I learn about His creation, the more I am in awe of His wisdom and majesty.
Try that instead, I would have to suggest.
You said "causes are not always predictable". Is that a law then or what?
Just a fact.
Have you taken into account what you say here in dealing with the past?
Yep.
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
Barbarian observes:
If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
That is not the question sir. Let me ask that again. Do you believe that Satan have supernatural power?
If you'd read scripture, you'd notice that it's the only kind he has, subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else.
Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today,
For example, telling YE creationists that one must be YE to be saved? Or maybe just telling them that people who don't accept that modern doctrine, aren't going to be as well off as those who do.
as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
As you see, he deceived her by telling part of the truth. It's his nature to do that. No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
So, you believe.
I showed you an example. A man dedicated to YE creationism, who when he found it could not be true, almost lost his faith in God. This is the real danger of YE creationism.
Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Barbarian observes:
Yep. Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive.
And what happened to Eve?
God says:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:
As you now realize, Satan used part of the truth to deceive.
Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise.
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
The fruit of YE creationism no doubt appeals to others, who think it's desirable to make them wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
In the beginning, the deception was about knowledge.
Indeed. It was knowledge that caused the fall. It was when their eyes were opened, they knew good and evil and became like God. Do you understand why that was initially a curse and later a blessing?
YE creationism is just the latest way the serpent seeks to undermine God. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge.
Truly, as scriptures says, knowledge puffs up the man.
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
Not what you said it was.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:25:17
Barbarian observes:
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Well, let's take a look...
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.png)
Nope. You've been very badly misled about that. Let's see what the abortion rate is doing...
(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20170121_WOC633_0.png)
You're way off there, too. So if there's an effect, evolution teaching reduces violence and abortion.
Even attempting to make such an argument pitting the teaching of evolution affection abortion rates is beyond retarded.
Even attempting to make such an argument pitting the teaching of evolution affection abortion rates is beyond retarded.
I wouldn't call him "retarded" but I do think it's a very foolish argument. Not only is there no reason to believe that teaching evolution has any effect on violence or abortion rates, the correlation of those two things is a negative one.
As you suggest, correlation is not causation, so we can't argue that teaching evolution lowers violence, either.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 15:31:21
Even attempting to make such an argument pitting the teaching of evolution affection abortion rates is beyond retarded.
It wasn't Barbarian making the connection. He posted the data showing that if there is a connection it is just the opposite to that proposed by the one arguing with Barbarian.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 13:59:40
The notion that we can't know anything we didn't personally see happen is demonstrably false.
Well, truly now, knowledge really puffed up the man. He thinks he knows what happened billions of years ago.
One who says that he knows what happened there is acting like being God.
No. It's acting like a human. God gave us the evidence and the intelligence and curiosity to understand it.
Do you know what's in the mind and heart of the human that you say?
Let me give you a hint. The human chose to disobey his creator, and desires to be wise, for he wanted to be like God in that sense. He is foolish, thinking he could be like God by his disobedience. And he is foolish and proud, thinking that he can handle what he is desiring of.
The human is of the flesh. Paul said that nothing good dwells in the flesh. Don't you believe that? Haven't you read in scriptures what God said of man?
Gen. 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
At here's what Paul reveals about man.
Romans 1:21-23
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1:28-31
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
One can only guess at best sir, even the most brilliant minds of all of humanity combined.
Nope. We can use evidence to learn about things we did not see happen.
Like what happened billions of years ago? Like how God created all things? Do you not realize what that even sounds like?
If you are not guessing, are you now saying that using the evidence you say, that you are sure it happened that way? If you aren't sure, why act as though you are? Such wisdom of man. Such confidence in the intelligence and wisdom of man.
I think it's best that you keep those to yourself sir.
Ignorance is no sin. But it's turning your back on His creation.
Turning my back on creation? What I'm turning my back from is not on God's creation sir. It's from what scientists have come up as to HOW God created everything, which goes beyond what God revealed in scriptures.
I'd rather spend my time studying God's words in scriptures sir.
I've been reading His word for nearly 63 years. He seems to favor not being ignorant. My observation is that the more I learn about His creation, the more I am in awe of His wisdom and majesty.
Try that instead, I would have to suggest.
Reading is not sin. But if all you do is read, what good is that?
You been making observations practically all your life sir. Observing is not sin. But if all you do is observe, what good is that?
You said
"My observation is that the more I learn about His creation, the more I am in awe of His wisdom and majesty." So, you feel good about your observation. Others, on the other hand, their observation keeps them farther away from God, and keeps millions of people away from God. Something not to feel good about. Besides, I'd rather do things that God will feel good about, do things that pleases God.
You said
"Try that instead, I would have to suggest." What? Are you now suggesting that I spend my time studying what scientists have written rather than what I presently am spending my time at, that is, studying God's words in scriptures? And for what end? Christian, that's really unbelievable! Hope you observe what your observations had made of you sir. I'm sorry to say. but that is just my observation of you.
Michael, please try to ask coherent and sensible questions, it's quite obvious that you are uneducated on this subject but please try not to confuse the thread with ridiculous questions.
A murder is solved by evidence, it isn't solved by predicting the future.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:00:24
Michael, please try to ask coherent and sensible questions, it's quite obvious that you are uneducated on this subject but please try not to confuse the thread with ridiculous questions.
A murder is solved by evidence, it isn't solved by predicting the future.
So what's your point in your last statement?
And Alan, would you be kind enough to tell me what you say are ridiculous questions that I asked?
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:21:19
So what's your point in your last statement?
And Alan, would you be kind enough to tell me what you say are ridiculous questions that I asked?
Demanding that scientists show predictions of the future is ridiculous, at least in this field it is.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:33:21
What about other irreconcilable opinions in scripture? People more often than not disagree on matters of theology. Are all those people under the same scrutiny?
You can't hold fellowship in sincerity and in truth at the Marriage Supper table if a believer is supporting a lie that has caused many to turn away from the Bible & Jesus altogether.
Those former believers and sinners that would have believed in Him if they knew there was God to seek after. You think God would not know of their complaints?
: LastCall Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:36:02
You can't hold fellowship in sincerity and in truth at the Marriage Supper table if a believer is supporting a lie that has caused many to turn away from the Bible & Jesus altogether.
Those former believers and sinners that would have believed in Him if they knew there was God to seek after. You think God would not know of their complaints?
Still dodging the question ::rollingeyes::
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:27:09
Demanding that scientists show predictions of the future is ridiculous, at least in this field it is.
So, you don't like that and you find that ridiculous.
How about this. Hope you don't find this ridiculous.
If God created by evolution all kinds of creatures, and evolution still continues, and there ae still new kinds and new species evolving, does that mean God isn't finished creating yet?
: Michael2012 Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:52:41
So, you don't like that and you find that ridiculous.
How about this. Hope you don't find this ridiculous.
If God created by evolution all kinds of creatures, and evolution still continues, and there ae still new kinds and new species evolving, does that mean God isn't finished creating yet?
Things are continuously changing all around us as nature predicts, but consider this; maybe, just maybe we reside in the era that scripture points to regarding the return of our Lord. It is in God's hands.
Ok, scatter-gun post...
-- I can't locate the post(s), but some YE in the thread remarked about non-YEs considering them worthy of ridicule for being "uneducated." It's not that so much as the fact that some of you seem PROUD of being uneducated, as if ignorance were a virtue. Such people do deserve scorn, and more.
-- KJV-only people are nuts.
-- Hyper-literalists are nuts.
-- At least one YE felt obliged for some reason to detour into deriding those of us who hold to a Pentecostal understanding of Rom. 8:26-27. What was the point of that, other than to be unnecessarily insulting?
-- There is a ton of blather from at least one of the YEs about the Pre-Trib Rapture in relation to whether or not we hold YE beliefs. First, it's nutty to link the two. Second, what about those of us who do not hold to Pre-Trib Rapturism?
-- I do have serious qualms about using the various natural sciences to determine what Gen. 1-11 must have meant and not meant. I have equal qualms about trying to force the evidences of the natural sciences to fit a literalistic reading of Gen. 1-11. I believe philology and theology should be the primary tools used to interpret Scripture; if the meaning does not comport with the findings of the natural sciences, accept the mystery. (I specify "natural" sciences, because I consider philology and theology to be "sciences" of their own sorts.)
: NorrinRadd Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:01:49
Ok, scatter-gun post...
-- I can't locate the post(s), but some YE in the thread remarked about non-YEs considering them worthy of ridicule for being "uneducated." It's not that so much as the fact that some of you seem PROUD of being uneducated, as if ignorance were a virtue. Such people do deserve scorn, and more.
-- KJV-only people are nuts.
-- Hyper-literalists are nuts.
-- At least one YE felt obliged for some reason to detour into deriding those of us who hold to a Pentecostal understanding of Rom. 8:26-27. What was the point of that, other than to be unnecessarily insulting?
-- There is a ton of blather from at least one of the YEs about the Pre-Trib Rapture in relation to whether or not we hold YE beliefs. First, it's nutty to link the two. Second, what about those of us who do not hold to Pre-Trib Rapturism?
-- I do have serious qualms about using the various natural sciences to determine what Gen. 1-11 must have meant and not meant. I have equal qualms about trying to force the evidences of the natural sciences to fit a literalistic reading of Gen. 1-11. I believe philology and theology should be the primary tools used to interpret Scripture; if the meaning does not comport with the findings of the natural sciences, accept the mystery. (I specify "natural" sciences, because I consider philology and theology to be "sciences" of their own sorts.)
Lots of blather indeed ::smile::
Now if we debate one of these literalists in a non-related thread we are belittled for being atheist like evolutionary adherents. (par).
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:17:18
Since evolution is consistent with Christian belief, that's not an issue. But when YE creationists (not all of them, mind) say that you must accept their new doctrines to be saved, that does turn people away from God.
It is not consistent with Christian beliefs that we are taught when we walk into Sunday school classes and were taught stories from the bible. Or in church services when they read passages from the bible.
Or when we went to school and are given a text book to read that shows a series of monkeys, first walking on all fours... then apes, who start all hunched over on all fours but gradually over the multiple milleniums started walking upright... then their conceived rendition of cave men.... andthen humans as we know them. With nary a mention of God. Heaven forbid anything about Jesus... and only the mention that we all came from a single cell in the sea.
So not all evolution is cinsistent with Christianity.
And I still want to know, as I asked before....
"For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?"
Why can't it be that of those things you evolutionists call fact and the actual creation of man that the YE people believe can't both be fact.. Not that the earth is necessarily as young as what the YE claim but that man as we know him... the one that has a savior and has a potential eternity in heaven came about after all the other was done?
and if you are going to say similarities in makeup... I will simply say.... Take Some flour, water, eggs,sugar, and chocolate and ask you what you get.
Can be cookies, breakfast or a cake. All 3 linked but drastically different and one did not morph into the other.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 10:25:17
Barbarian observes:
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Well, let's take a look...
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.png)
Nope. You've been very badly misled about that. Let's see what the abortion rate is doing...
(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/20170121_WOC633_0.png)
You're way off there, too. So if there's an effect, evolution teaching reduces violence and abortion.
Funny. That is not what I am seeing on the National News tonight on NBC.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:38:49
Still dodging the question ::rollingeyes::
That was a yes. If you want an explanation for that yes, go back to that reply that you seem to think was dodging the question.
: Ginger Rella Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:12:57
It is not consistent with Christian beliefs that we are taught when we walk into Sunday school classes and were taught stories from the bible. Or in church services when they read passages from the bible.
Or when we went to school and are given a text book to read that shows a series of monkeys, first walking on all fours... then apes, who start all hunched over on all fours but gradually over the multiple milleniums started walking upright... then their conceived rendition of cave men.... andthen humans as we know them. With nary a mention of God. Heaven forbid anything about Jesus... and only the mention that we all came from a single cell in the sea.
So not all evolution is cinsistent with Christianity.
And I still want to know, as I asked before....
"For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?"
Why can't it be that of those things you evolutionists call fact and the actual creation of man that the YE people believe can't both be fact.. Not that the earth is necessarily as young as what the YE claim but that man as we know him... the one that has a savior and has a potential eternity in heaven came about after all the other was done?
and if you are going to say similarities in makeup... I will simply say.... Take Some flour, water, eggs,sugar, and chocolate and ask you what you get.
Can be cookies, breakfast or a cake. All 3 linked but drastically different and one did not morph into the other.
Why the contentions? Too many believers have ceased believing in the Bible at all and thus turned away from Jesus because of the evolution theory.
But I believe that those "Christians" that has been preaching evolution are subverted and cannot see the truth in His words, and so the Lord will have to help me to withdraw from further conversations with them since it is obviously going nowhere with them to their benefit while they just resort to insults.
So I apologize for trying to reason with them when obviously they do not want to hear it, and thus responding in kind to their judging me for which I judged their actions instead; as in judge not les ye be judged and so they git judged back, but I should not have since the Lord did nothing to give them pause..
1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Ephesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
I believe the Lord is making it obvious to me that I am of no use to Him here. Jesus is still Lord.
: LastCall Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:51:04
Why the contentions? Too many believers have ceased believing in the Bible at all and thus turned away from Jesus because of the evolution theory.
You have been shown, but like many YEs refuse to acknowledge, that many lose trust in the Bible and turn away because the assertions and predictions of YEC do not explain what they encounter in real life, e.g. in their professions. So if some do turn away because of "evolution," many others turn away because of YEC.
But I believe that those "Christians" that has been preaching evolution are subverted and cannot see the truth in His words, and so the Lord will have to help me to withdraw from further conversations with them since it is obviously going nowhere with them to their benefit while they just resort to insults.
And you are not "resort(ing) to insults" when you say "Christians" in quotation marks, suggesting that those "preaching" evolution are fakes?
So I apologize for trying to reason with them when obviously they do not want to hear it, and thus responding in kind to their judging me for which I judged their actions instead; as in judge not les ye be judged and so they git judged back, but I should not have since the Lord did nothing to give them pause..
Passive-aggressive fauxpologies are always fun.
1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Ephesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
I believe the Lord is making it obvious to me that I am of no use to Him here. Jesus is still Lord.
If you continue to judge people's salvation based on whether or not they believe in a woodenly literal view of Gen. 1-11, refuse to acknowledge other hermeneutical approaches at all, and refuse to acknowledge the demonstrable limitations of YEC, I question whether you can be of use to Him anywhere.
: Ginger Rella Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:12:57
"For everyone posting here.
Young earthers, those evolutionists that are so into the millions and billions of year theories, and everyone in between.
Why can it not be all? Why does it have to be either or?"
If there were no theological consequences for believing in either of the theories, there would indeed be no issue.
The problem is however that the theological impact is very substantial.
The YE theory points to a Designer. In fact, YE creationism can only work if there is a God involved.
On the contrary, Darwinian Evolution is a theory based on a purely materialistic basis for the existence of the universe.
The summum of this theory is to exclude the need for a Creator altogether.
Now some of the evolutionists here would claim they can believe in evolution AND a creator God.
However, believing in a creator God is not part of the evolution theory. The theory of evolution seeks only for a materialistic explanation of the universe.
So back to your question.
Can both be true? Obviously it can not.
You would be better off asking if there is any scientific proof for a YE theory.
See, if the YE theory is a brainless as the evolutionists here claim, then it would not have any basis and there would be no evidence whatsoever for its validity.
Yet evidence does exist!
So if there is evidence that the universe is not billions of years old, why would it be necessarily intelligible to believe it is?
Barbarian shows that violence has been declining for decades, and that abortions are declining in the United States)
Funny. That is not what I am seeing on the National News tonight on NBC.
Show us that. Checkable sources. As you learned, it's well-documented that both violence and abortions are declining in the United States.
: NorrinRadd Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 19:06:32
You have been shown, but like many YEs refuse to acknowledge, that many lose trust in the Bible and turn away because the assertions and predictions of YEC do not explain what they encounter in real life, e.g. in their professions. So if some do turn away because of "evolution," many others turn away because of YEC.
That's a completely retrospective argument.
What you encounter in real life not necessarily is truth.
You see that for example in the life of Jesus.
What Jesus said and preached was opposed to what people encountered in real life, or what they were told by the Scribes and Pharisees.
Hence people turned away from Jesus and ended up killing Him.
People do not turn away from God because they are told the truth...people turn away from God because they choose to believe a lie.
You can't turn away from God if you believe in YEC, because the whole point of YEC is to point towards God.
It is in fact evolution that points away from God.
: AVZ Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 22:35:29
If there were no theological consequences for believing in either of the theories, there would indeed be no issue.
The problem is however that the theological impact is very substantial.
The YE theory points to a Designer. In fact, YE creationism can only work if there is a God involved.
On the contrary, Darwinian Evolution is a theory based on a purely materialistic basis for the existence of the universe.
The summum of this theory is to exclude the need for a Creator altogether.
You seem to be arguing that "Darwinian" Evolution is the only kind, even when people in this discussion have posited others. Even YECs now acknowledge "macro" as well as "micro" evolution; but they disingenuously obfuscate by renaming it.
Your refusal to accept these facts suggests you are either an incompetent or dishonest interlocutor.
As for theological impacts --
Yes, there are potential pitfalls all around.
If you read any of the Glenn Morton article Barbarian linked up in Reply #3048 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/the-empty-headed-myth-of-evolution/msg1055125884/#msg1055125884), you saw some. People were taught YEC understandings of geology, hydrology, etc., and then went to work in the "real world" (usually not academia), and found that the actual things they encountered were not at all compatible with YEC "science." The theological impact was that "the Bible" did not match what they were actually encountering in real life, so "the Bible" can't be trusted. This nearly caused several to abandon the faith.
OTOH, if the "evolution (whether or not it be 'theistic') from ape-like prohominids" idea is pressed far enough, it gets to a point where there was not a real Adam and Eve, and so we have to question whether the Gen 1-3 accounts of the First Pair and the original "Creation Order" have any teaching value, whether there really was a "Fall" and need for a Savior, whether Jesus as the "Last Adam" has any meaning at all.
Now some of the evolutionists here would claim they can believe in evolution AND a creator God.
However, believing in a creator God is not part of the evolution theory. The theory of evolution seeks only for a materialistic explanation of the universe.
That's only so in your narrow view which refuses to accept that there are different versions of "evolution." I only had, like, one or two courses in Philosophy, about 38 years or so ago. I think maybe that's an "excluded middle" fallacy.
So back to your question.
Can both be true? Obviously it can not.
You would be better off asking if there is any scientific proof for a YE theory.
See, if the YE theory is a brainless as the evolutionists here claim, then it would not have any basis and there would be no evidence whatsoever for its validity.
Yet evidence does exist!
MAYBE in some fields; I really don't know, and I no longer trust YEC "scientists" themselves to be honest about the matter. In any case, I refer you again to the Morton article.
: NorrinRadd Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 01:09:26
You seem to be arguing that "Darwinian" Evolution is the only kind, even when people in this discussion have posited others. Even YECs now acknowledge "macro" as well as "micro" evolution; but they disingenuously obfuscate by renaming it.
Your refusal to accept these facts suggests you are either an incompetent or dishonest interlocutor.
As for theological impacts --
Yes, there are potential pitfalls all around.
If you read any of the Glenn Morton article Barbarian linked up in Reply #3048 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/the-empty-headed-myth-of-evolution/msg1055125884/#msg1055125884), you saw some. People were taught YEC understandings of geology, hydrology, etc., and then went to work in the "real world" (usually not academia), and found that the actual things they encountered were not at all compatible with YEC "science." The theological impact was that "the Bible" did not match what they were actually encountering in real life, so "the Bible" can't be trusted. This nearly caused several to abandon the faith.
OTOH, if the "evolution (whether or not it be 'theistic') from ape-like prohominids" idea is pressed far enough, it gets to a point where there was not a real Adam and Eve, and so we have to question whether the Gen 1-3 accounts of the First Pair and the original "Creation Order" have any teaching value, whether there really was a "Fall" and need for a Savior, whether Jesus as the "Last Adam" has any meaning at all.
That's only so in your narrow view which refuses to accept that there are different versions of "evolution." I only had, like, one or two courses in Philosophy, about 38 years or so ago. I think maybe that's an "excluded middle" fallacy.
MAYBE in some fields; I really don't know, and I no longer trust YEC "scientists" themselves to be honest about the matter. In any case, I refer you again to the Morton article.
I am not sure what you mean with "another kind" of evolution.
There are only two options: Creation or Evolution
Even if you claim that a Creator used evolution to create, you still make the claim that a Creator used purely materialistic means to bring His creation about.
In scientific terms that is called Intelligent Design.
Science, by its own admission, limits itself to the natural.
So an evolutionist who claims interference by an intelligence outside the realm of the natural, does not make a scientific statement.
As far as science is concerned, it is an invalid statement.
There is only 1 kind of evolution and that is a 100% materialistic origin of the universe.
You say that YEC's acknowledge macro evolution.
Can you perhaps point me to some evidence of that?
And since you claim the YEC's obfuscate the definition of "macroevolution" maybe you can post the definition you think is the only proper definition which we should use in the continuation of this discussion.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23You said "causes are not always predictable". Is that a law then or what?
Just a fact.
Have you taken into account what you say here in dealing with the past?
Yep.
That too then is a fact in the past. And with that, it is impossible too, to tell what happened in the past, not knowing the actual environment then. So that, scientific calculations regarding the past are based on assumptions and speculations.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
That is not the question sir. Let me ask that again. Do you believe that Satan have supernatural power?
If you'd read scripture, you'd notice that it's the only kind he has, subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else.
If that were as you say with Satan, then man is subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else. You are putting man and Satan then as equals. But, as it is, that is not true. For Satan is a spirit creature that has abilities greater than man. He has abilities beyond the natural abilities of man. In other words he has supernatural powers.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today,
No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
So, you believe.
For example, telling YE creationists that one must be YE to be saved? Or maybe just telling them that people who don't accept that modern doctrine, aren't going to be as well off as those who do.
Well, take your issue with YE to them, not to me.
The deception may well be, telling us to believe in the work of scientists, believing, unbelieving, and atheist scientists included, their theories about HOW the heavens and the earth, the living creatures, and man came into being. The deception today is similar to that in the beginning.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23as he had deceived Eve about the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
As you see, he deceived her by telling part of the truth. It's his nature to do that. No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
As I said, the deception today is similar to that in the beginning. Satan deceives those who believe in God, like Eve and Adam then. So, it is not against non-believers that he really works on to deceive, but the believers, that he would have them believe in him instead and fight God.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23
Remember what the serpent said to Eve? He said "God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Yep. Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive.
Good to know that you are aware of that.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23
And what happened to Eve?
God says:
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:
As you now realize, Satan used part of the truth to deceive.
Here's what happened to Eve, before that sir.
Gen.3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise.
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
The fruit of YE creationism no doubt appeals to others, who think it's desirable to make them wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
As I said, take your issue with YE to them, not to me. I can't speak for them sir.
Nice quote of scriptures there. But it does not have anything to do with our discussion of deception and the point I make in my post.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23
In the beginning, the deception was about knowledge.
Indeed. It was knowledge that caused the fall. It was when their eyes were opened, they knew good and evil and became like God. Do you understand why that was initially a curse and later a blessing?
YE creationism is just the latest way the serpent seeks to undermine God. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge.
As I said, the deception today is similar to that in the beginning. And Satan uses the same tactic, the same temptation, attacking the man, where he is weak.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 14:55:23
Truly, as scriptures says, knowledge puffs up the man.
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
Not what you said it was.
Yes, for what I said is what scriptures says about knowledge. That it puffs up the man. He puffs him up to the point of losing sight of the truth, of God. He is brought to look on his works and achievements, how great they are, even leading him to preach and teach it as though it is the truth, working systematically to instill such in the unbelieving young, and working tirelessly and passionately to persuade the children of God to believe him. Such pride he have, and such arrogance.
: LastCall Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:37:08
That was a yes. If you want an explanation for that yes, go back to that reply that you seem to think was dodging the question.
Hmm, you've been here less than a week and are already indulged in several disagreements. Which of those people are indulging in the "lie" that will place their salvation in jeopardy?
Seems it's only
you that know the true path, some agree with you here but disagree with you in other theological concerns, us and them are all doomed according to your views.
: Alan Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 16:58:12
Things are continuously changing all around us as nature predicts, but consider this; maybe, just maybe we reside in the era that scripture points to regarding the return of our Lord. It is in God's hands.
Maybe....yes and no.
That's really how it is with the world and the world of science.
Considering what has been said, it seems that to the Christian scientist who take the creation of God as by evolution, the man that scriptures said God created wasn't really the Adam scriptures says after all. For since the time when mankind came to being, Adam being the first according to scriptures, man continues to evolve to this day. Ask as to what man will evolve to be, the scientist could hardly guess. What they will say is that, evolution of man is on-going. That this is what the evidence shows. That this is a fact, and therefore is true, as this is scientifically verifiable and is directly observed. That if one will not accept such, is a fool and exhibits to having so little knowledge to none.
Anyway, Alan, on another concern I posted in Reply# 3029, can you respond to it sir? Here's the link:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/general-discussion-forum/the-empty-headed-myth-of-evolution/msg1055125839/#msg1055125839
Thank you.
: AVZ Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 03:46:55
There are only two options: Creation or Evolution
Nope, there is creation via evolution. It was God that set the universe in motion creating all life and matter.
: Texas Conservative Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 15:31:21
Even attempting to make such an argument pitting the teaching of evolution affection abortion rates is beyond retarded.
The original point I had made was here:
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:08:28
As long as evolution theory is taught in schools, there are no consequence for right & wrong, and bullying and abortion will be the norm as naturally selecting the weak for extinction as it is a dog eat dog world and this life is all that you have.
Then Alan said this:
: Alan Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 10:57:59
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. The schools teach evolution because it's a fact, not because they have some agenda of natural selection, thanks for your unsupported and obtuse opinion though and thank heavens it is completely meaningless. ::aloneinclearlogic::
Then I said;
: LastCall Wed Dec 12, 2018 - 12:05:48
I did not say that the schools had an agenda. I was only pointing to the effect for which the evolution theory being taught in our schools is the cause.
Then Barbarian changed the subject to my saying the evolution theory is the cause for increase in violence and abortion in society when that was not my original point, and I fell for it.
: The Barbarian Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 00:54:38
I notice that the decades-long decline in violent crime coincides with the teaching of evolution in public schools. I notice also that the increase in pro-life opinion occurred at the same time. The effect, if there is one, is toward less violence and fewer abortions.
Clearly you are not comprehending what's actually going on as you are not comprehending what a scientific theory actualy is. The observation of macroevolution is one of the many confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Theories, as you now realize are stronger than laws.
Anyway, I got suckered into opposing him when he had changed the subject from what I was saying when all I have seen in the news lately is a rise in violence; which I am sure violent riots is not being counted in his graph for why I do not believe it is without bias. Plus, it is invalid to use such graphs when restrictions for abortions caused the decline;
So he is suckering everybody into believing those graphs when those graphs do not prove that evolution theory taight in school caused the decline of violent crimes and abortion. if you read his quote carefully above.
So I wasn't originally saying that evolution theory taught in schools cause the increase of violent crimes & abortion, and since that is a stupid argument, so is trying to prove the opposite. None of those graphs proves that evolution theory in schools caused the decline in violent crimes and abortion, now does it?
The reason I said originally is what naturally selection means in the evolution theory as being the source for bullying and abortion in schools as selecting the weak and the vulnerable. They would be hard pressed to prove that is not one of the reasons for that mentality for bullying and abortion in our society.
: AVZ Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 03:46:55
There are only two options: Creation or Evolution
Wrong. But I am not going to waste time restating what I have stated previously as it will only be ignored.
: Alan Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 07:55:20
Nope, there is creation via evolution. It was God that set the universe in motion creating all life and matter.
I should reply to this with the same reply I gave AVZ but it just begs for a question to be answered.
When and at what point, during the evolution of man, that you are bent on believing, did God the Creator give man as we know him a soul?
I will forgo any discussion of our being spirits, living in a body , and having a soul becauseI would guess you do not subscribe to the belief of the triune nature of man. But you , Avz, and even I all have souls... IF you actually believe the Holy Bible, that confirms this you cannot deny it.
Do you think it was 200 million years ago? 30,000 years ago? or maybe not until we die awaiting our judgements? When?
And once you answer that for us, just think about this one.... I will not ask for an answer.
Why do you think God gave man a soul? For what purpose?
When in the entirelty of his eternity past creations why do you and I and Avz, and Barbarian, and Michael 2012, and NorrinRadd, and Last Call, and RB, and mommydi, and TC and Notreligus and everyone else posting in this thread and everyone posting on GC. And even Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump...... WHY were we all given souls.... and when and for what purpose..... when there is no record of anything else ever having one.... Certainly not of those we allegedly morphed from.....
JUST think about this one. It should never be out of thought in any evolutionists mind.
: NorrinRadd Thu Dec 13, 2018 - 17:01:49
Ok, scatter-gun post...
-- I can't locate the post(s), but some YE in the thread remarked about non-YEs considering them worthy of ridicule for being "uneducated." It's not that so much as the fact that some of you seem PROUD of being uneducated, as if ignorance were a virtue. Such people do deserve scorn, and more.
-- KJV-only people are nuts.
And yet not all Bibles say the same thing. You try correcting any one in error by one Bible version and they will go to another. Same goes for those in error using the KJV, but with the KJV, I can show them their error for which then those cultist that claim they only use the KJV, go to another Bible version that supports their point of view. So my point of reference is to stick to the KJV since modern Bibles are changing the message in His words that we are supposed to have in discerning good & evil by it. I am not representing everything KJVOnlyism supposedly stands for, I am saying why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good and evil by it. Those that are astray need to stick to the KJV if they are ever going to have hope of finding the truth in His words with His help.
-- Hyper-literalists are nuts.
Jesus quoted scripture as something that cannot be broken when refuting the Pharisees and the Sadducees so I suggest you reconsider, because if they were just stories, they would laugh at Him to shame, but they did not. The fact that Jesus validated Noah and the global flood should slap any believer in the face for believing in the evolution theory.
-- At least one YE felt obliged for some reason to detour into deriding those of us who hold to a Pentecostal understanding of Rom. 8:26-27. What was the point of that, other than to be unnecessarily insulting?
Because not all Bible are saying the same thing for why many believers do not understand that there is a supernatural tongue in the world in the occults, idolatry, world's religions for why God would never have His gift of tongue mimic that kind of tongue if believers are to prove all things and abstain from all appearances of evil. His gift of tongues is NOT for private use when ALL Bibles say in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues to speak His own intercessions by. Therefore why Romans 8:26-27 in the KJV has it right when not even His groanings can be uttered. As it is, tongue speakers today ignore the warning from John about not believing every spirit but test them in 1 John 4:1-6 as well as the tongue they bring and ignoring Paul's warning about any one preaching another Jesus to receive, thus moving away from the simplicity of the gospel in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 because Jesus Christ is in us always per our faith 2 Corinthians 13:5
-- There is a ton of blather from at least one of the YEs about the Pre-Trib Rapture in relation to whether or not we hold YE beliefs. First, it's nutty to link the two. Second, what about those of us who do not hold to Pre-Trib Rapturism?
Because there can be no lie of the truth in fellowship at the Marriage Supper table. What is required for proper church fellowship down here is definitely enforced in Heaven in order to eat there.
-- I do have serious qualms about using the various natural sciences to determine what Gen. 1-11 must have meant and not meant. I have equal qualms about trying to force the evidences of the natural sciences to fit a literalistic reading of Gen. 1-11. I believe philology and theology should be the primary tools used to interpret Scripture; if the meaning does not comport with the findings of the natural sciences, accept the mystery. (I specify "natural" sciences, because I consider philology and theology to be "sciences" of their own sorts.)
Do you have qualms that those who contend for the evolution theory here are not even sticking to the definition they had trolled out for scientific theory for which AVZ corrected them for a scientific theory to be valid when it has to be able to observe the phenomenon in the natural world? And yet they who would trot out that definition are now denying it while saying that the evolution theory is true and a fact. So what is wrong with this picture?
: Alan Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 07:55:20
Nope, there is creation via evolution. It was God that set the universe in motion creating all life and matter.
What you are proposing is not a third option. It is in fact one option alternating the other.
So sometimes it is creation, and sometimes it is evolution.
What you are proposing is that God created evolution.
But that would make evolution a supernatural event.
Now, if indeed evolution is a supernatural event, then science cannot study it because science cannot study things that are supernatural.
What you are proposing is in fact a contradiction in terms.
: Ginger Rella Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 08:33:37
Wrong. But I am not going to waste time restating what I have stated previously as it will only be ignored.
I am not sure why you think you are being ignored.
Anyway, I think my claim is perfectly intelligible and I have deposited my response to Alan in the above reply.
: Ginger Rella Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 08:33:37
I should reply to this with the same reply I gave AVZ but it just begs for a question to be answered.
When and at what point, during the evolution of man, that you are bent on believing, did God the Creator give man as we know him a soul?
I will forgo any discussion of our being spirits, living in a body , and having a soul becauseI would guess you do not subscribe to the belief of the triune nature of man. But you , Avz, and even I all have souls... IF you actually believe the Holy Bible, that confirms this you cannot deny it.
Do you think it was 200 million years ago? 30,000 years ago? or maybe not until we die awaiting our judgements? When?
And once you answer that for us, just think about this one.... I will not ask for an answer.
Why do you think God gave man a soul? For what purpose?
When in the entirelty of his eternity past creations why do you and I and Avz, and Barbarian, and Michael 2012, and NorrinRadd, and Last Call, and RB, and mommydi, and TC and Notreligus and everyone else posting in this thread and everyone posting on GC. And even Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump...... WHY were we all given souls.... and when and for what purpose..... when there is no record of anything else ever having one.... Certainly not of those we allegedly morphed from.....
JUST think about this one. It should never be out of thought in any evolutionists mind.
The attribution of a soul to humanoids somewhere in the evolution from ape to man, is a dilemma only faced by Deist Evolutionists. And its a theological question.
They are well aware that if man originates from apes and only natural processes remained, then the gospel would be in severe jeopardy.
So they have to come up with some event that lifted apes to such a certain spiritual level that they would not longer be classified as apes, but sufficiently suitable for salvation.
According to the evolutionary time scale, humans came on the scene about 6 million years ago.
Primates supposedly were around some 50 million years ago.
So somewhere after 45 million years of primate evolution, God decided they were sufficiently evolved to receive a soul and ape was lifted to human level.
: AVZ Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 09:13:17
What you are proposing is not a third option. It is in fact one option alternating the other.
So sometimes it is creation, and sometimes it is evolution.
What you are proposing is that God created evolution.
But that would make evolution a supernatural event.
Now, if indeed evolution is a supernatural event, then science cannot study it because science cannot study things that are supernatural.
It would also be a contradiction in itself, because evolution by definition claims to be something purely materialistic without the involvement of the supernatural.
Stop injecting philosophy to confuse very simple ideologies. God created the singularity and set it in motion at His will.
Even if you don't accept evolution or old earth views, the fact that things are changing cannot be denied. At what point then did God hand over His creation to the essence of nature?
: Alan Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 09:34:34
Stop injecting philosophy to confuse very simple ideologies. God created the singularity and set it in motion at His will.
Even if you don't accept evolution or old earth views, the fact that things are changing cannot be denied. At what point then did God hand over His creation to the essence of nature?
I am not injecting confusion, I think you are.
I am perfectly OK if you say that God created a singularity and left it over to itself. That would mean the evolution of the singularity would become a purely materialistic event, and science could study it.
But you inject God into the mixture by saying God set it in motion. You now inject supernatural power into the evolution of the singularity, so it becomes outside the realm of science.
I don't believe that God ever hand over His creation to the essence of nature.
I believe that every element of life, every expression of energy is an essence of Gods power. If God would leave this universe over to its own, it would cease to exist.
God may not create new things anymore, but God does uphold this universe with His power.
I dont have to answer the question of the "when", that's actually a question you should answer because only your theory calls for nature being the driving force behind nature.
By the way, I notice that you now have "demoted" your position to "ideology".
Is that what you think your position is? An ideology?
: AVZ Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 09:28:12
According to the evolutionary time scale, humans came on the scene about 6 million years ago.
Primates supposedly were around some 50 million years ago.
So somewhere after 45 million years of primate evolution, God decided they were sufficiently evolved to receive a soul and ape was lifted to human level.
Interesting to think about.
More interesting to wonder then why it would have taken 45million years less 6,000 give or take, for God to say "The tie is now" for us to receive our written instructions and history book.
Something is in the works... and that also is interesting to think about.
However.... it is also interesting to think of God adding to his creations the human being that truly only came into existence at the time God had another creation He wanted to make. Someone who was meant for a higher purpose and plan. Someone equal too but advanced beyond all of the eternity past creations that God the Father has done.
I believe there is a reason man is as he is with a soul (I believe spirit, in a body with a soul)... and it is totally separate from what had been going on 45 or 50 million of years ago... 45 or 50 billion of ears ago or forever into eternity past.
And that is the reason I believe that evolutionists are largely, though not totally correct, as well as YE are also.
I believe we were made separately and wonderfully for a purpose and a reason.
And my beliefs are why I said Wrong to your "There are only two options: Creation or Evolution". I just see the possibility of a third
I am not sure what you mean with "another kind" of evolution.
There are only two options: Creation or Evolution
The actual fact is "creation
and evolution."
Even if you claim that a Creator used evolution to create, you still make the claim that a Creator used purely materialistic means to bring His creation about.
Nope. For example, your soul was not created by natural means. God does most things in this world by nature, but not all of them.
In scientific terms that is called Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design is the belief that God is not powerful enough to create, and must "design" instead.
Science, by its own admission, limits itself to the natural.
So an evolutionist who claims interference by an intelligence outside the realm of the natural, does not make a scientific statement.
Yes. Science can't even consider the supernatural. But scientists can. If this puzzles you, then you're starting to make some progress.
As far as science is concerned, it is an invalid statement.
No. Science neither confirms nor denies the supernatural.
There is only 1 kind of evolution
Nope. For example, there's adaptive evolution, driven by random mutation and natural selection. There's random variation, where alleles are neutral. There's lateral gene transfer, where genes can be transferred from one kind of organism to another. It's not very common in vertebrates but it's extremely common in prokaryotes.
and that is a 100% materialistic origin of the universe.
Nope. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of the universe. Neither does science.
You say that YEC's acknowledge macro evolution.
Yep. They just redefined it as "not really evolution."
Can you perhaps point me to some evidence of that?
Both "Answers in Genesis" and the ICR admit speciation is a fact.
And since you claim the YEC's obfuscate the definition of "macroevolution" maybe you can post the definition you think is the only proper definition which we should use in the continuation of this discussion.
Technically, "microevolution" is change of allele frequencies within a species. "Macroevolution" is change that results in new taxa. Speciation, in other words.
: AVZ Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 10:04:23
I am not injecting confusion, I think you are.
I am perfectly OK if you say that God created a singularity and left it over to itself. That would mean the evolution of the singularity would become a purely materialistic event, and science could study it.
But you inject God into the mixture by saying God set it in motion. You now inject supernatural power into the evolution of the singularity, so it becomes outside the realm of science.
I don't believe that God ever hand over His creation to the essence of nature.
I believe that every element of life, every expression of energy is an essence of Gods power. If God would leave this universe over to its own, it would cease to exist.
God may not create new things anymore, but God does uphold this universe with His power.
I dont have to answer the question of the "when", that's actually a question you should answer because only your theory calls for nature being the driving force behind nature.
By the way, I notice that you now have "demoted" your position to "ideology".
Is that what you think your position is? An ideology?
You really do try to confuse things by inserting your own rules, fortunately they do not apply. FWIW, no one outside of theistic religion knows what set the singularity in motion, it is nothing more than speculation among the atheistic scientific community. I say that God did it.
And yes, things are changing. We have observed many of these changes in our life times. Is that God or nature?
: Ginger Rella Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 10:33:17
Interesting to think about.
More interesting to wonder then why it would have taken 45million years less 6,000 give or take, for God to say "The tie is now" for us to receive our written instructions and history book.
Something is in the works... and that also is interesting to think about.
However.... it is also interesting to think of God adding to his creations the human being that truly only came into existence at the time God had another creation He wanted to make. Someone who was meant for a higher purpose and plan. Someone equal too but advanced beyond all of the eternity past creations that God the Father has done.
I believe there is a reason man is as he is with a soul (I believe spirit, in a body with a soul)... and it is totally separate from what had been going on 45 or 50 million of years ago... 45 or 50 billion of ears ago or forever into eternity past.
And that is the reason I believe that evolutionists are largely, though not totally correct, as well as YE are also.
I believe we were made separately and wonderfully for a purpose and a reason.
And my beliefs are why I said Wrong to your "There are only two options: Creation or Evolution". I just see the possibility of a third
The genealogy given in scripture regarding Jesus Christ back to the creation of Adam leaves no room for the possibility of a third option, let alone the option for evolution. Luke 3:23-38
If we look at Jesus for what we are hoping in Him for; to put death and hades in the lake of fire so that those redeemed can never be separated from Him ever again, then we have to acknowledge where death had come from in the first place as scripture testify to this.
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Why do you think women are not allowed to speak in church nor to teach in church? It was because of Eve being blamed for tempting man to doubt God's words that Adam heard directly from God. Thatw s why teh serpent went after Eve because God's commandment not to eat from that tree of the knowledge of good and evil came before Eve was created and so Satan sown doubt in her mind of what she did not hear God said directly. That in turn caused Adam to doubt when the woman said otherwise, but he knew better because he heard it straight from God.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
So that had happened for why that commandment was in place due to the fall of mankind. Adam, Eve, and Satan were all punished even though Satan did not eat from that forbidden tree but he tempted Eve for which both had fallen and so he was punished also. That punishment sets the order still in place in the N.T. as found at the fall. Adam was punished by hard labor for harkening unto the voice of his wife, signifying why women were punished by being ruled over by men since the fall and still in the N.T.
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
1 Corinthians 11: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Not to mention Jesus referring to Noah's flood as a real time global event of a judgment from God for why He was warning believers of what is coming when the Son of man.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Nobody chasten the Lord by saying that was just a story. It happened just as Sodom & Gomorrah did too.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Where is science telling us about the global flood during man's history on the earth? Nonexistent. If they had any credibility, they would have presented that as an actual historical event, but they did not.
Stephen Jay Gould did present the theory of Rapid Macroevolution or Punctuated Equilibrium because Gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records, but the irony here is that he proposed that to account for the explosion in the fossil record, a global flood had to occur in order to tap that capacity BUT he estimated that it happened back in the Cambrian Period. Wrong.
A newspaper article had evolutionists covering up the evidence of that Biblical global flood saying the mountains rose from the sea trapping marine life on it, but they are remiss for not explaining how fossilized land animal bones were found with fossilized whale bones and other marine life TOGETHER on the Andes mountains. Not only that, but fossilzied marine life can be found pretty mucb everywhere if you know where to look for it, let alone acknowledge it as so without ever realizing the implication of finding even a fossilized shell nowhere near an ocean.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html
So people see what they want to see and they do a lot of lack common sense in doing it, because they want to believe in the evolution theory.
I believe in Jesus and His words and that He had verified scripture as it is supposed to be taken as He did defend what marriage meant to be since the beginning of the creation of man and woman and He did verify what the sabbath day was made for as scripture pointed to it as God resting that day from the six days of creation.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
: LastCall Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 14:27:52
The genealogy given in scripture regarding Jesus Christ back to the creation of Adam leaves no room for the possibility of a third option, let alone the option for evolution. Luke 3:23-38
That makes absolutely no sense at all, one is not dependent on the other.
Many oceanic sediments are not uplifted mountains, or the result of receding oceans.
: LastCall Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 14:27:52
The genealogy given in scripture regarding Jesus Christ back to the creation of Adam leaves no room for the possibility of a third option, let alone the option for evolution. Luke 3:23-38
Yes it does if you look at the bible from Adam to Revelation as a literal text book for the Judeo /Christians of God having provided a way for us, by history and clear instruction from Adam forward, through the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins as our savior ... to the only living souls that have ever had the opportunity to attain an eternal heavenly home once we sre dead to this earth.
All in the blink of an eye, to God, who for 6,10, or 13 thousand years has provided this to us.
If there were others, then it would have said so i the bible.
It is as if we are in a special selection chosen for such a time as this for whatever the reason God wants this to be.
And yes it does if you read the very first line of Gen 1(nkjv) with a new and open mind ...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Because this single statement says volumes. It says that in the beginning. The beginning of what? The beginning when?
The beginning could be 6,000 years ago or it could be many trillions of billions of years ago and that would have no negative effect on YE believers or evolutionists.
The fact is.... Taking Gen 1 :1 simply tells us it is possible... and I say likely... that both are correct and
that gives us a third option.
Where is science telling us about the global flood during man's history on the earth? Nonexistent.
Since scripture doesn't say it was global, either, that makes sense.
Stephen Jay Gould did present the theory of Rapid Macroevolution or Punctuated Equilibrium because Gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records,
Nope.
but the irony here is that he proposed that to account for the explosion in the fossil record, a global flood had to occur in order to tap that capacity BUT he estimated that it happened back in the Cambrian Period. Wrong.
No, that's wrong, too. Read his essay
Was the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?A newspaper article had evolutionists covering up the evidence of that Biblical global flood saying the mountains rose from the sea trapping marine life on it,
No. The mountains that were raised up (sometimes still measurably rising) were marine rocks with fossils. Mt. Everest, for example, is made of marine fossils.
but they are remiss for not explaining how fossilized land animal bones were found with fossilized whale bones and other marine life TOGETHER on the Andes mountains.
Same way mass beaching of whales still happens today. No mystery there.
Instead of believing stories like this, why not just let God do it His way? Once you do that, it won't bother you any longer.
: Ginger Rella Fri Dec 14, 2018 - 20:45:02
Yes it does if you look at the bible from Adam to Revelation as a literal text book for the Judeo /Christians of God having provided a way for us, by history and clear instruction from Adam forward, through the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins as our savior ... to the only living souls that have ever had the opportunity to attain an eternal heavenly home once we sre dead to this earth.
All in the blink of an eye, to God, who for 6,10, or 13 thousand years has provided this to us.
If there were others, then it would have said so i the bible.
It is as if we are in a special selection chosen for such a time as this for whatever the reason God wants this to be.
And yes it does if you read the very first line of Gen 1(nkjv) with a new and open mind ...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Because this single statement says volumes. It says that in the beginning. The beginning of what? The beginning when?
The beginning could be 6,000 years ago or it could be many trillions of billions of years ago and that would have no negative effect on YE believers or evolutionists.
The fact is.... Taking Gen 1 :1 simply tells us it is possible... and I say likely... that both are correct and
that gives us a third option.
The very first sentence is the topic and the following verses was how God went about accomplishing that in the first verse. The important thing to remember that scripture was not originally separated by chapters nor numbered by chapters and verses. The first account of creation involved in that topic started at verse 1, actually ends in Genesis 2:3 before the next topic began in verse 4 about the generations of mankind and where man has come from which is a rehash of what had happened on the sixth day.
But first the first account of creation as this was more about how God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1In 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.
Verses 2-4 is the first day of creation where light came into existence to establish what? The first day of creation by how there was evening and morning that first day. That 24 hour period was established first for that first day that was created in creation as it followed it afterwards for the other five days of creation.
That means time was established that very first day; hence the beginning of time as there was nothing before that time of that first day of creation.
Another important truth is that there was no earth nor heavens that first day. Over the next 2 days, is about the formation of earth as water was separated to form a water planet with an upper atmosphere. How do we know that it literally meant the earth was not there as in without shape and void? Because the heavens was created the fourth day to give lights to the earth for seasons.
Now if we were to assume that there were no other people than God's chosen people, we forget that when Cain killed Abel and Seth replaced Abel, Seth was the ancestor connecting to Adam that Israel's family tree came from as "representing the godly line as the sons of God" which the nation of Isreal was before it changed in John 1:12-13 on who the sons of God are now.
And although we have this in scripture;
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Not all of Adam and Eve's children were godly; just the line of Seth was godly for why they were called the sons of God by whom are Isreal's ancestry or roots are from. We can see the warning to not marry outside the nation of Isreal per what had happened when the sons of God married outside their godly lineage before the flood. The fact that Jesus verified Noah's flood testify that His words in Genesis are valid for why God told Israel not to marry outside the nation of Isreal.
The Law of Biogenesis can account for the variations of speciies of animals and so that is why there are variations of the speciies of man as we are all of one race, the human race as we are all descendents of Noah and his family as only 8 souls were saved being on that ark.
Abraham married his half sister whereas many years later, as the nation of Isreal, he would not have been allowed to.
Genesis 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
And so it was in the beginning of creation for where Cain got his wife, because the reason why Cain was fearful for killing Abel, because everybody living on the earth was family for why he had no place to go to be safe for killing his brother. If there were other created men and women on earth, then he would have a place and a people to hide among, but there was none.
The error of most believers is thinking Cain & Abel were the only ones Eve had given birth to when Genesis went into that background of how godly Abel was killed for why Seth was to be conceived to replace the slain godly brother from which Israel sprung from.
So the Bible is about His story as the God that created us and has redeemed us and thus has saved us for all those that believe in Jesus Christ so we would never be separated from God ever again.
So there was no reason for there to be any other people when sin cane into the world by Adam and death by sin was how death came into the world. To have death before Adam and Eve takes away the glory of God in salvation in Christ Jesus of His Story, because then what do you have hope for is His word is not really saying what is written? How can you believe His words will be kpet that death and hades will be cast into the lake of fire forever signifying we will never sin against God and never be separated from God ever again?
So I can understand the conveniency of the Bible serving what appears to be the nation of Isreal, but it really isn't when His Story as in the Bible is about Jesus Christ all along because there is no other future to be had for there to be any reason for someone else to be created than Adam & Eve for how ALL men inherited the sin due to the fall of Adam & Eve.
So when you read Genesis 1:1, the following verses all the way to Genesis 2:3 is how God did Genesis 1:1 as the first day of creation in His words, literally meant the first day, signifying by that evening and morning, that 24 hour period, for that first day. Indeed, the first day ws the beginning for the creation of the heavens and the earth.
: LastCall Sat Dec 15, 2018 - 09:21:46
The very first sentence is the topic and the following verses was how God went about accomplishing that in the first verse. The important thing to remember that scripture was not originally separated by chapters nor numbered by chapters and verses. The first account of creation involved in that topic started at verse 1, actually ends in Genesis 2:3 before the next topic began in verse 4 about the generations of mankind and where man has come from which is a rehash of what had happened on the sixth day.
But first the first account of creation as this was more about how God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1In 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.
Verses 2-4 is the first day of creation where light came into existence to establish what? The first day of creation by how there was evening and morning that first day. That 24 hour period was established first for that first day that was created in creation as it followed it afterwards for the other five days of creation.
That means time was established that very first day; hence the beginning of time as there was nothing before that time of that first day of creation.
Another important truth is that there was no earth nor heavens that first day. Over the next 2 days, is about the formation of earth as water was separated to form a water planet with an upper atmosphere. How do we know that it literally meant the earth was not there as in without shape and void? Because the heavens was created the fourth day to give lights to the earth for seasons.
Now if we were to assume that there were no other people than God's chosen people, we forget that when Cain killed Abel and Seth replaced Abel, Seth was the ancestor connecting to Adam that Israel's family tree came from as "representing the godly line as the sons of God" which the nation of Isreal was before it changed in John 1:12-13 on who the sons of God are now.
And although we have this in scripture;
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Not all of Adam and Eve's children were godly; just the line of Seth was godly for why they were called the sons of God by whom are Isreal's ancestry or roots are from. We can see the warning to not marry outside the nation of Isreal per what had happened when the sons of God married outside their godly lineage before the flood. The fact that Jesus verified Noah's flood testify that His words in Genesis are valid for why God told Israel not to marry outside the nation of Isreal.
The Law of Biogenesis can account for the variations of speciies of animals and so that is why there are variations of the speciies of man as we are all of one race, the human race as we are all descendents of Noah and his family as only 8 souls were saved being on that ark.
Abraham married his half sister whereas many years later, as the nation of Isreal, he would not have been allowed to.
Genesis 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
And so it was in the beginning of creation for where Cain got his wife, because the reason why Cain was fearful for killing Abel, because everybody living on the earth was family for why he had no place to go to be safe for killing his brother. If there were other created men and women on earth, then he would have a place and a people to hide among, but there was none.
The error of most believers is thinking Cain & Abel were the only ones Eve had given birth to when Genesis went into that background of how godly Abel was killed for why Seth was to be conceived to replace the slain godly brother from which Israel sprung from.
So the Bible is about His story as the God that created us and has redeemed us and thus has saved us for all those that believe in Jesus Christ so we would never be separated from God ever again.
So there was no reason for there to be any other people when sin cane into the world by Adam and death by sin was how death came into the world. To have death before Adam and Eve takes away the glory of God in salvation in Christ Jesus of His Story, because then what do you have hope for is His word is not really saying what is written? How can you believe His words will be kpet that death and hades will be cast into the lake of fire forever signifying we will never sin against God and never be separated from God ever again?
So I can understand the conveniency of the Bible serving what appears to be the nation of Isreal, but it really isn't when His Story as in the Bible is about Jesus Christ all along because there is no other future to be had for there to be any reason for someone else to be created than Adam & Eve for how ALL men inherited the sin due to the fall of Adam & Eve.
So when you read Genesis 1:1, the following verses all the way to Genesis 2:3 is how God did Genesis 1:1 as the first day of creation in His words, literally meant the first day, signifying by that evening and morning, that 24 hour period, for that first day. Indeed, the first day ws the beginning for the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Whatever
: Ginger Rella Sat Dec 15, 2018 - 09:25:53
Whatever
Sent PM for several points for you to reconsider. I did read your PM for why I am reiterating some points with more clarity, hoping He will cause the increase in the knowledge of Him.
Have you taken into account what you say here in dealing with the past?
Barbarian observes:
Yep.
That too then is a fact in the past. And with that, it is impossible too, to tell what happened in the past, not knowing the actual environment then.
No, you're wrong about tehat. The argument that we can't know anything we didn't see happen, is demonstrably wrong. And yes we can also know what the environment was in the past, but looking at the evidence.
So that, scientific calculations regarding the past are based on assumptions and speculation
Facts and evidence. No point in denying the facts.
May I ask, as a Christian, do you believe that Satan have power?
Barbarian explains:
If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
That is not the question sir. Let me ask that again. Do you believe that Satan have supernatural power?
Barbarian observes:
If you'd read scripture, you'd notice that it's the only kind he has, subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else.
If that were as you say with Satan, then man is subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else.
He already granted powers to us.
You are putting man and Satan then as equals.
If you'd read scripture, you'd know better. Can Satan bring God to him, when he wants? God promises that whenever two or more of us come together in His name, He will be there for us.
For Satan is a spirit creature that has abilities greater than man.
He has no force over you, unless you grant it to him. He is not another god; he's a pitiful being, unable to reconcile himself to God, being eternally separated from the truth.
Had it ever occurred to you that he is trying to deceive the world today,
Barbarian observes:
No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
So, you believe.
I showed you examples.
The deception may well be, telling us to believe in the work of scientists, believing, unbelieving, and atheist scientists included, their theories about HOW the heavens and the earth, the living creatures, and man came into being. The deception today is similar to that in the beginning.
In your case, Satan's telling you to believe that science what caused heaven and earth to come into being.
Barbarian observes:
As you see, he deceived her by telling part of the truth. It's his nature to do that. No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive.
Today people's eyes are pleased of all the things that is the fruit of science and see it desirable to make one wise.
God says:
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
The fruit of YE creationism no doubt appeals to others, who think it's desirable to make them wise. Could it be that others, like Eve, were deceived, they took of its fruit and ate. And still others, like Adam, they heed the voice of others, that they also ate of the fruit?
Barbarian observes:
Indeed. It was knowledge that caused the fall. It was when their eyes were opened, they knew good and evil and became like God. Do you understand why that was initially a curse and later a blessing?
YE creationism is just the latest way the serpent seeks to undermine God. It seems, the old serpent, uses the same deception, knowledge.
Proverbs 18:15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
Yes, for what I said is what scriptures says about knowledge. That it puffs up the man. He puffs him up to the point of losing sight of the truth, of God. He is brought to look on his works and achievements, how great they are, even leading him to preach and teach it as though it is the truth, working systematically to instill such in the unbelieving young, and working tirelessly and passionately to persuade the children of God to believe him. Such pride he have, and such arrogance.
Learning scriptures does indeed puff up some people. And so they add things to it to suit themselves.
Has any body noticed how some Christian evolutionists had trotted the definition of that scientific theory in how they are not adhering to that definition for why the macroevolution cannot be valid when that phenomenon cannot be observed in the natural world but the theory of gravity can?
And yet we can't hold them to it as another Christian evolutionist seem to be offended for creationists to limit that definition of the scientific theory to observing the phenomenon in the natural world.
So pray for them. They want to accuse us for being uneducated, but they are coming across as having eyes but not seeing. It is a war of principality & only God can recover them from this lie.
: LastCall Sat Dec 15, 2018 - 10:40:56
Has any body noticed how some Christian evolutionists had trotted the definition of that scientific theory in how they are not adhering to that definition for why the macroevolution cannot be valid when that phenomenon cannot be observed in the natural world but the theory of gravity can?
And yet we can't hold them to it as another Christian evolutionist seem to be offended for creationists to limit that definition of the scientific theory to observing the phenomenon in the natural world.
So pray for them. They want to accuse us for being uneducated, but they are coming across as having eyes but not seeing. It is a war of principality & only God can recover them from this lie.
You ARE uneducated but it's slightly amusing watching you make a fool of yourself ::crackup::
Has any body noticed how some Christian evolutionists had trotted the definition of that scientific theory in how they are not adhering to that definition for why the macroevolution cannot be valid when that phenomenon cannot be observed in the natural world but the theory of gravity can?
Macroevolution has been directly observed. As you learned, even YE creationist organizations admit it. They just redefined the term to exclude the evolution of new taxa. However, the definition of a theory is not "directly observed." It is an idea or a group of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Hence, Huxley's prediction of feathered dinosaurs has been confirmed, as has Darwin's prediction of increasing fitness in populations over time, and many others.
And yet we can't hold them to it as another Christian evolutionist seem to be offended for creationists to limit that definition of the scientific theory to observing the phenomenon in the natural world.
You're still having trouble understanding what a scientific theory is.
May God give you the grace to know when you don't understand.
: The Barbarian Sat Dec 15, 2018 - 10:25:25If you are a Christian, he has no power over you that you do not give to him willingly.
I thought you did fairly well with some of your answers to LastCall. I agree with this statement.
: PaulPhilippians 1:28~"And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God."
Including Satan, when I'm living in obedience to the word of God, I have no fear of Satan; I give him power over me by my disobedience.
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25 Facts and evidence. No point in denying the facts.
While I agree with this in a measure, it's also true
that MUCH scientific calculations regarding the past are based on assumptions and speculation...both are true.
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25If you'd read scripture, you'd notice that it's the only kind he has, subject to God's willingness to grant him anything else.
Agreed. He is NOT Omnipotent, NETHER Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc. He does not possess the attributes of the Godhead, he was a created spirit.
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25He has no force over you, unless you grant it to him. He is not another god; he's a pitiful being, unable to reconcile himself to God, being eternally separated from the truth.
He does not have any power over us, yet he CAN hinder us, tempt us, etc. He's far from being a pitiful being, for if God was not for us, he could very easily destroy all of us. The reason why he is UNABLE to reconcile himself to God is the very same reason why man cannot do so~He's a man of SIN, where sin rules him and he does not have the WILL TO LOVE GOD, that MUST be given to both angles and MAN! He was NOT part of the elect angles~
1st Timothy 5:21! and because of that, yes, he's eternally separated from God.
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
Sir, there is NOT ONE thing a man can believe or not believe that can influence a person coming to Christ! That's a gift from God to his elect on the behalf of Jesus Christ! Maybe you should stick to science instead of teaching the scriptures. ALL that God has given to Christ WILL COME!
: Jesus ChristJohn 6:37~"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
So your reasoning is not Biblical.
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25 Satan often uses a part of the truth to deceive
Agreed
: The Barbarian Reply #3104 on: Yesterday at 10:25:25Indeed. It was knowledge that caused the fall.
To believe that would make God the reason they fell into sin. You are so wrong on this point. The reason WHY they sinned is God
left them to themselves without KEEPING THEM from falling to reveal an important doctrine to us~that is, God ALONE is
IMMUTABLE, neither angels nor man are so! The election of some angles KEPT THEM FROM FALLING. So much more could be said, but enough.
While I agree with this in a measure, it's also true that MUCH scientific calculations regarding the past are based on assumptions and speculation...both are true.
Can you give us an example of a major point of evolutionary theory that is based on assumptions and speculation?
(regarding Satan)
Agreed. He is NOT Omnipotent, NETHER Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc. He does not possess the attributes of the Godhead, he was a created spirit.
Barbarian observes:
He has no force over you, unless you grant it to him. He is not another god; he's a pitiful being, unable to reconcile himself to God, being eternally separated from the truth.
He does not have any power over us, yet he CAN hinder us, tempt us, etc. He's far from being a pitiful being, for if God was not for us, he could very easily destroy all of us. The reason why he is UNABLE to reconcile himself to God is the very same reason why man cannot do so~He's a man of SIN, where sin rules him and he does not have the WILL TO LOVE GOD, that MUST be given to both angles and MAN! He was NOT part of the elect angles~1st Timothy 5:21! and because of that, yes, he's eternally separated from God.
He's not a man at all. He's merely a spirit. He is, as the OT writers pointed out, an overzealous prosecutor, seeing evil everywhere, rebelling against God Who saw potential goodness everywhere.
Barbarian observes:
No doubt, he delights in YE creationism, which some people use to build a barrier against non-believers to come to God.
Sir, there is NOT ONE thing a man can believe or not believe that can influence a person coming to Christ!
I notice that various things people believe, demonstrably affects them coming to Christ.
That's a gift from God to his elect on the behalf of Jesus Christ!
God says not.
2 Peter 2:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
So no one was created by God to lose salvation. His will is that all should come to repentance. He merely gives you the freedom to chose.
Maybe you should stick to science instead of teaching the scriptures.
That is scripture. Second book of Peter. It's worth a read. So your reasoning is not Biblical.
Barbarian observes:
Indeed. It was knowledge that caused the fall.
To believe that would make God the reason they fell into sin.
Only if you suppose they had no choice. Until they understood good and evil, they were unable to sin. But by gaining that knowledge, they became like God, as the serpent and God agreed. The great issue here is that as their eyes were opened and they became morally aware, they were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but were unable to be truly good in order to be so. This is why a Savior was necessary.
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 16, 2018 - 09:45:42
Can you give us an example of a major point of evolutionary theory that is based on assumptions and speculation?
The singularity
: AVZ Sun Dec 16, 2018 - 10:02:09
The singularity
It's the same assumption as if God snapped His fingers and made it so, or if the singularity was the method in which God triggered the event to follow.
Barbarian asks:
Can you give us an example of a major point of evolutionary theory that is based on assumptions and speculation?
The singularity
Not part of evolutionary theory. Do you have anything that is actually part of evolutionary theory that's based on assumptions and speculation?
: The Barbarian Sun Dec 16, 2018 - 10:14:41
Barbarian asks:
Can you give us an example of a major point of evolutionary theory that is based on assumptions and speculation?
Not part of evolutionary theory. Do you have anything that is actually part of evolutionary theory that's based on assumptions and speculation?
Do you have any evidence supporting the theory of evolution, that is not based upon assumptions and speculation? Creationists do not have the mind boggling issues of complexity in light of statistical probabilities relating to design by random chance. If "Christian" evolutionists are going to admit of God's hand and guidance throughout the entire development of complexity through deep time, then they basically admit evolution is false. If they are not, then they demonstrate far greater faith in random chance development of complexity a hundred million times over concerning life on this planet alone. Which is it? Did God remain involved in the process and in fact guide it, which means it was not evolution at all, or do you worship at the feet of random chance? If it is the latter, you certainly do not need to be lecturing or questioning creationists about assumptions and speculation, evolutionists are the masters of the same.
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-creation-is-a-god-of-the-gaps/
Evolution (Not Creation) Is a God of the Gaps
.............................................................................................
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations
Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always "evolution did it" or "natural selection did it" without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.
This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:
We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2
The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection "must" have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.
When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that "evolution did this" and "natural selection did that" for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, "Miss, you keep saying 'evolution did it,' but you never actually explain how evolution did it." The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.
Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin's finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science
Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.
Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was "junk" DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.
A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution's Knowledge
When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand
I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a "god of the gaps." He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a "magic wand." He said that he has noticed how even the experts say "evolution did this" and "natural selection did that" without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying "evolution did it."
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution
Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews
Biblical creation versus evolution is not "faith versus science," but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator
In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say "God did it" for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase "God did it" is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.
If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin's theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.
That was a lot of really stupid stuff. Typical for answersingenesis. Point in fact: Nothing in evolution denies God as author of creation. Whether or not some scientists believe in God is totally moot.
Do you have any evidence supporting the theory of evolution, that is not based upon assumptions and speculation?
Directly observed evolution, including macroevolutionary events. Many different series of transitional forms in the fossil record. Observed instances of natural selection, showing increases in fitness in populations. Confirmed evidence that dinosaurs were the precursors to birds, such as dinosaur heme and collagen being more like that of birds than of other reptiles, avian repiratory systems in dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs, etc. Genetic data showing humans being more closely related to chimpanzees than either is to other apes. Evidence for chromosome fusion in humans. Demonstration that there are no well-defined limits to species. The fact that all living things on Earth fit nicely into a family tree, which was discovered long before anyone knew of evolution.
To name a few.
Creationists do not have the mind boggling issues of complexity in light of statistical probabilities relating to design by random chance.
As you know, Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance. You've been repeatedly reminded about this, and yet you continue to post as though you never knew it.
If "Christian" evolutionists are going to admit of God's hand and guidance throughout the entire development of complexity through deep time, then they basically admit evolution is false.
YE creationist say this, because they don't think that God is capable enough and wise enough to create a world in which life can develop according to His will.
If they are not, then they demonstrate far greater faith in random chance development of complexity a hundred million times over concerning life on this planet alone.
You know better than this. You've been repeatedly reminded of this. And yet you continue to write things like this as if you never knew it. You either have a very defective memory, or you are pretending you don't know.
Which is it?
I prefer to think you are so deeply committed to your man-made doctrines, that you just put it out of your mind.
But it's a very poor reflection on your beliefs.
AiG and Ken Ham both are deluded, Ham has been embarrassed on more than one occasion.
: 4WD Fri Jan 11, 2019 - 12:12:39
That was a lot of really stupid stuff. Typical for answersingenesis. Point in fact: Nothing in evolution denies God as author of creation. Whether or not some scientists believe in God is totally moot.
A great many evolutionists do in fact deny the God of scripture as our Creator. "Christian" evolutionists deny the plain testimony of the creation account in scripture, opting instead for some symbolic or allegoric meaning of the same, for the exact purpose of allowing for their chosen faith in evolution. Meanwhile, they cannot actually tell you what that symbolic or allegorical meaning is, just that it allows for their blind faith in evolution. It is of course obvious why "Christian" evolutionists do not believe fallen humanity needs God's help in arriving at truth. Such is of course not conducive to support for the theory of evolution, since so many evolutionists deny God altogether, if not at least the creation account of scripture.
: The Barbarian Fri Jan 11, 2019 - 17:52:16
Directly observed evolution, including macroevolutionary events. Many different series of transitional forms in the fossil record. Observed instances of natural selection, showing increases in fitness in populations. Confirmed evidence that dinosaurs were the precursors to birds, such as dinosaur heme and collagen being more like that of birds than of other reptiles, avian repiratory systems in dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs, etc. Genetic data showing humans being more closely related to chimpanzees than either is to other apes. Evidence for chromosome fusion in humans. Demonstration that there are no well-defined limits to species. The fact that all living things on Earth fit nicely into a family tree, which was discovered long before anyone knew of evolution.
To name a few.
As you know, Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance. You've been repeatedly reminded about this, and yet you continue to post as though you never knew it.
YE creationist say this, because they don't think that God is capable enough and wise enough to create a world in which life can develop according to His will.
You know better than this. You've been repeatedly reminded of this. And yet you continue to write things like this as if you never knew it. You either have a very defective memory, or you are pretending you don't know.
I prefer to think you are so deeply committed to your man-made doctrines, that you just put it out of your mind.
But it's a very poor reflection on your beliefs.
Same baloney as always. Simply calling evolutionists observations and speculations concerning the same evidence so many interpret differently fact, ever equal actual fact. Some of your supposed facts, are not facts at all, lest your exalted opinion of yourself deems your own speculations as fact. Then of course there is the old false accusation that taking God's word for exactly what it actually says in the creation account, is creating man made doctrine. While evolutionists denying what it actually says without any alternate explanation of the same, equates to the theory of evolution being true God made doctrine because apparently, evolutionists are God. Yea, that's the ticket.
: Alan Fri Jan 11, 2019 - 17:56:15
AiG and Ken Ham both are deluded, Ham has been embarrassed on more than one occasion.
Neither of them are God, just like evolutionists they are prone to mistakes. We can discuss embarrassing mistakes on both sides of the issue if you would like. There is quite a selection. Of course when creationists make mistakes it is because their theory is based upon the "ignorance" of faith in the plain testimony of scripture, but when evolutionists make mistakes it is just the natural course of science testing and balancing itself. Same old baloney.
The difference is simple. Evolutionist science is based upon faith in the authority of fallen humanities observations by supposed experts of the same. Creationist science is based upon faith in the authority of God's word meaning what it plainly states in its creation account. Both simply seek to establish the authority of their chosen faiths through examination of the same evidence before all.
(Barbarian lists some of the evidence for evolution)
Same baloney as always.
No point in trying to hand-wave it away. Even YE creationist Kurt Wise admits:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms Simply denying the obvious, that honest creationists have already acknowledged to be true, really doesn't help you.
Then of course there is the old false assertion that the man-made doctrine of YE creationism is taking God's word for exactly what it actually says in the creation account.
And at some point, you probably should stop making false claims about evolutionary theory that you've been corrected on time after time.
: The Barbarian Sat Jan 12, 2019 - 21:17:17
(Barbarian lists some of the evidence for evolution)
No point in trying to hand-wave it away. Even YE creationist Kurt Wise admits:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Simply denying the obvious, that honest creationists have already acknowledged to be true, really doesn't help you.
Then of course there is the old false assertion that the man-made doctrine of YE creationism is taking God's word for exactly what it actually says in the creation account.
And at some point, you probably should stop making false claims about evolutionary theory that you've been corrected on time after time.
Your' twisted application of what "honest" creationists have acknowledged is highly indicative of how twisted the rest of your reasoning is. Nothing they acknowledge amounts to your faith in the man made theory of evolution. They reject what you believe and you know it, so why be dishonest and twist whatever acknowledgments some may have made, into full support for evolution as the predominant mechanism of our existence? This is what you believe and argue, it is not what they believe or argue at all. I guess it is hard for those in the habit of twisting and manipulating evidence toward their own ends in supporting their faith, to stop doing so when addressing the words or intentions of others as well.
: Amo Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 12:33:11
Your' twisted application of what "honest" creationists have acknowledged is highly indicative of how twisted the rest of your reasoning is. Nothing they acknowledge amounts to your faith in the man made theory of evolution. They reject what you believe and you know it, so why be dishonest and twist whatever acknowledgments some may have made, into full support for evolution as the predominant mechanism of our existence? This is what you believe and argue, it is not what they believe or argue at all. I guess it is hard for those in the habit of twisting and manipulating evidence toward their own ends in supporting their faith, to stop doing so when addressing the words or intentions of others as well.
You use very strong words to try to make your point but at the end of the day it means nothing, anyone with half a brain knows that evolution is fact.
: Alan Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 16:20:50
You use very strong words to try to make your point but at the end of the day it means nothing, anyone with half a brain knows that evolution is fact.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I like to believe that the Bible is understandable on its own terms, and yet I find it undeniable that strict prima facie literalism is a foolish way to approach many Biblical texts. I do not have the scientific knowledge to evaluate "evolution," nor do I have the philological expertise to evaluate in depth the early chapters of Genesis.
I am, however, a dedicated smart-ass, and so I note that bold-faced portion of your quote can easily be turned against you. ::whistle::
: Alan Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 16:20:50
You use very strong words to try to make your point but at the end of the day it means nothing, anyone with half a brain knows that evolution is fact.
Evolution is Science's current best explanation. Not a "fact."
Your' twisted application of what "honest" creationists have acknowledged
I left you a link. As you know, I quoted him directly and left you the link to the paper/testimony so you could check for yourself. No point in denying the facts.
Nothing they acknowledge amounts to your faith in the man made theory of evolution.
Wise is a YE creationist. He's just honest enough to admit that the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And he is also honest enough to admit that creationists have no way at present to explain this evidence. He goes on to admit that whales are a particular problem for YE beliefs, since it is impossible at present to reconcile a worldwide flood with regard to whales. He retains his hope that there might one day be a way to explain these things in a creationist view.
They reject what you believe and you know it
I pointed that out to you. They just have the integrity to admit that the evidence does not support their belief.
so why be dishonest and twist whatever acknowledgments some may have made, into full support for evolution as the predominant mechanism of our existence?
No one here did that. I won't characterize your statement as dishonesty; I'll prefer to think of as poor reasoning.
This is what you believe and argue
No. I pointed out that there are YE creationists who are honest enough to admit evidence that indicates evolution, for which creationists have no reasonable explanation. As you know, that's true, but for some reason, you've chosen to characterize my statement differently. I do hope it's merely poor reasoning on your part.
Evolution is Science's current best explanation. Not a "fact."
Evolution is a directly-observed phenomenon. A fact. Evolutionary theory is the best way we have of explaining it at this point. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but is not an observed fact. It is merely an inference, which is supported by a massive body of evidence.
Would you like to see some of that evidence, again?
: The Barbarian Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 21:09:01
Evolution is a directly-observed phenomenon. A fact. Evolutionary theory is the best way we have of explaining it at this point. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but is not an observed fact. It is merely an inference, which is supported by a massive body of evidence.
Would you like to see some of that evidence, again?
You know dang well what was meant, but you continue to parse and obfuscate in order to win your argument.
: Texas Conservative Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 06:08:10
You know dang well what was meant, but you continue to parse and obfuscate in order to win your argument.
And you don't?? That's a hoot.
For those of you who have a solid belief that we have evolved from basically a single source.
For those of you who believe that there is too much of a tie in of basic... can I simply say ingredients ... that make up life and that supports the evolution of things from some point to what is living today.
For those of you who see science as being the end all that "proves" to your satisfaction that we are here by the evolutionary process and not by devine design.
3 questions.
#1. Where did the human spirit evolve from?
#2 Where did the human soul evolve from?
( according to everything I have ever, heard , read, discussed or debated. We are the only species that possess these )
#3. What possible reason could the creator God, IF you actually believe there is a creator, have for picking mankind starting back a mere 6,000 to 13,000 years ago to change his original design from having things evolve and just continue on rather then throw a wrench into the mix by instilling religious beliefs in mankind with a goal of a heavenly eternity, or a punishment of a hellish eternity, if you get it wrong. Why?
::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn:
: Alan Sun Jan 13, 2019 - 16:20:50
Anyone with half a brain knows that evolution is fact.
Absolutely correct!
: Ginger Rella Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 07:48:43
For those of you who have a solid belief that we have evolved from basically a single source.
For those of you who believe that there is too much of a tie in of basic... can I simply say ingredients ... that make up life and that supports the evolution of things from some point to what is living today.
For those of you who see science as being the end all that "proves" to your satisfaction that we are here by the evolutionary process and not by devine design.
3 questions.
#1. Where did the human spirit evolve from?
#2 Where did the human soul evolve from?
( according to everything I have ever, heard , read, discussed or debated. We are the only species that possess these )
#3. What possible reason could the creator God, IF you actually believe there is a creator, have for picking mankind starting back a mere 6,000 to 13,000 years ago to change his original design from having things evolve and just continue on rather then throw a wrench into the mix by instilling religious beliefs in mankind with a goal of a heavenly eternity, or a punishment of a hellish eternity, if you get it wrong. Why?
::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn: ::eatingpopcorn:
Ginger Rella,
The interesting thing in all of this is that the spirit of man did not evolve. It's source is not even within this universe, the universe created by God. The spirit of man does not originate in the procreation process of the human being. The spirit of man, each man individually and uniquely, comes directly and only from God.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: Jesus declared that same thing in his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus said,
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The spirit of man is wholly and completely disconnected from the parents of the man.
Barbarian clarifies:
Evolution is a directly-observed phenomenon. A fact. Evolutionary theory is the best way we have of explaining it at this point. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but is not an observed fact. It is merely an inference, which is supported by a massive body of evidence.
Would you like to see some of that evidence, again?
You know dang well what was meant
No, that's the problem. You seem to be unclear on evolution, which is a directly observed phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, which explains it. And I'm thinking you're probably confusing both of those with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.
but you continue to parse and obfuscate in order to win your argument.
If you think clarification is obfuscation, isn't that a revelation of sorts for you?
#1. Where did the human spirit evolve from?
Spirits don't evolve. Comes directly from God.
#2 Where did the human soul evolve from?
Souls don't evolve. They come directly from God.
( according to everything I have ever, heard , read, discussed or debated. We are the only species that possess these )
I don't think we know for sure, but it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 08:53:09
I don't think we know for sure, but it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
Either you don't know for sure, or it is very clear.
Obviously if you cant know for sure then it can't be very clear...so which one is it?
: AVZ Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 09:48:23
Either you don't know for sure, or it is very clear.
Obviously if you cant know for sure then it can't be very clear...so which one is it?
It was a two part answer and very easy to comprehend, do you require some help?
Either you don't know for sure, or it is very clear.
Obviously if you cant know for sure then it can't be very clear...so which one is it?
It was a two part answer and very easy to comprehend, do you require some help?
I imagine he just went back and read the exchange again, and figured it out. But thanks for your hint.
We don't know for sure if animals have souls.
But it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
: 4WD Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 08:33:55
Ginger Rella,
The interesting thing in all of this is that the spirit of man did not evolve. It's source is not even within this universe, the universe created by God. The spirit of man does not originate in the procreation process of the human being. The spirit of man, each man individually and uniquely, comes directly and only from God.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him:
Jesus declared that same thing in his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus said,
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The spirit of man is wholly and completely disconnected from the parents of the man.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 08:53:09
Spirits don't evolve. Comes directly from God.
Souls don't evolve. They come directly from God.
I don't think we know for sure, but it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
4WD... Exactly.
The spirit of man does not originate in the procreation process of the human being. The spirit of man, each man individually and uniquely, comes directly and only from God.
Barbaian... Definitely
Spirits don't evolve. Comes directly from God.
Souls don't evolve. They come directly from God.
We seem to all be on the same page on this........
But this is where our agreement will part.
Now, I am not going to debate the validity of Genesis. We have all been told it is believed Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, but we also have been told it may be someone else.
Too much has been written as to when Genesis actually was written and there seems to be little consensus.
Too much has been written in support of Moses being the author. Or Moses not being the author as there are a couple events that happened after Moses' death. And even suggestions of Moses being the author and it being added to
after his death.
I frankly don't care.
One thing certain is someone did it.
And under the inspiration from God. At least that is my belief.
But I also do believe that as things are inspired , short of having a one on one conversation with God as Moses did on the Mount, then transcriptions of inspiration may well come under the inadequacies of man and misinterpretations of man and misunderstanding of man, or incompleteness of man...... Interpretation of inspiration can, will and most likely did allow for
areas of incomplete explanation.
Yes it is true... God told Moses in person
Exodus 34:27 (NKJV)
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
But it is certain He did not dictate all of the first five book of the bible to Moses or whomever wrote them
That being said in support of your statements I agree with can be further shored up with
Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Gen 2:8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
_______________________________
God formed a man. We know him as Aam and God breathed life into him.
I believe this would be spirit and soul.
Now, another question:
Why could Adam not have been created... formed by God.... for a purpose totally separate from His creation of the universe and what was created before?
While you can argue that in spots Genesis is vague, and there is no explanation of how anything was made, we are specifically told that God formed man of the dust of the ground and even more specific in Gen 2: 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
Not this nonspecific Gen 1: 6 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
He
never said of Adam... the one placed in the Garden of Eden... "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
We are specifically told He did...form man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
He
never said of Adam's woman.... in the image of God He created him; male and female
We are told He did .... "the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman,"
Never forget. This man Adam, who God formed from the ground was created then place in Eden. The woman came into existence after Adam was in Eden. Adam and Eve were to be in eden. Not tending the entire earth.
This is very specific.... not ... Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So I repeat my question:
Why could Adam not have been created... formed by God.... for a purpose totally separate from His creation of the universe and what was created before?Even if you are adamant that Adam was an evolution product, which makes Genesis out to be a lie.... ( And brings the rest of the Holy book into question) Even if Adam was the product of evolution, he was singled out for God to instill spirit and soul into..... AND was originally only to live in the Garden of Eden.....
That begs the question of Why?
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 14:34:13
But it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
Most of your evolutionary scientific buddies claim otherwise.
Are you saying that most scientists have a problem recognizing things that are very clear?
: AVZ Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 17:31:28
Most of your evolutionary scientific buddies claim otherwise.
The people that reject creation? Yep
Are you saying that most scientists have a problem recognizing things that are very clear?
If they are the same people that reject God in the first place, what is clear to the believer is muddied to the disbeliever.
Again, I'm not understanding your difficulty comprehending. You're either clueless or you're attempting to build another straw man.
: Alan Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 17:40:45
The people that reject creation? Yep
If they are the same people that reject God in the first place, what is clear to the believer is muddied to the disbeliever.
Again, I'm not understanding your difficulty comprehending. You're either clueless or you're attempting to build another straw man.
I am simply responding to the arbitrary declarations the both of you are making.
The part of scripture where God created man and made him a living soul, comes straight out of the same event that you have declared metaphorical.
You guys are inconsistent.
If indeed it is "very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes" then where is the scientific community stepping up admitting it?
How very clear can it be if scientists seem to miss it or claim the opposite?
It appears to me that if its very clear but not acknowledged, scientists are purposely in denial.
And if they deny that which is very clear, then obviously it is not a problem for them to declare that which is not very clear as undeniable truth.
So you have a whole bunch of people, the secular scientific community, the vast majority of scientists, who deny that which is very clear and you guys take their scientific conclusions as truth?
If it is very clear and scientists don't see it...then scientists are blind.
In that case you are being led by the blind. Good luck with that.
: AVZ Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 19:58:26
I am simply responding to the arbitrary declarations the both of you are making.
The part of scripture where God created man and made him a living soul, comes straight out of the same event that you have declared metaphorical.
You guys are inconsistent.
If indeed it is "very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes" then where is the scientific community stepping up admitting it?
How very clear can it be if scientists seem to miss it or claim the opposite?
It appears to me that if its very clear but not acknowledged, scientists are purposely in denial.
And if they deny that which is very clear, then obviously it is not a problem for them to declare that which is not very clear as undeniable truth.
So you have a whole bunch of people, the secular scientific community, the vast majority of scientists, who deny that which is very clear and you guys take their scientific conclusions as truth?
If it is very clear and scientists don't see it...then scientists are blind.
In that case you are being led by the blind. Good luck with that.
haha, yep, straw man. Good luck with that rofl
Barbarian observes:
But it's very clear that neither our souls nor our spirits are the result of natural processes.
Most of your evolutionary scientific buddies claim otherwise.
Guess how I know you don't know many scientists. In fact, slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims. But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.
Are you saying that most scientists have a problem recognizing things that are very clear?
I'm suggesting that your assumptions aren't grounded in reality.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 21:49:13
Guess how I know you don't know many scientists. In fact, slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims. But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.
Simply not true.
Gould considers the issue of a "soul" a purely religious issue. He doesn't even acknowledge the presence of a thing called soul.
Dawkins is a materialist and claims the "soul" is a product of DNA.
My statement was "Most of your
evolutionary scientific buddies"...
You come back with the response "slightly more than half of us are theists..."
Whether you are a theist or not has nothing to do with whether you are an evolutionist.
Look at you for example. You say you are a theist and at the same time you say you are an evolutionist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
Barbarian observes:
Guess how I know you don't know many scientists. In fact, slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims. But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.
Simply not true.
Absolutely true. For example, Gould considers the issue of a "soul" a purely religious issue, not a scientific one.
Dawkins is a materialist and claims the "soul" is a product of DNA.
Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist.
My statement was "Most of your evolutionary scientific buddies"...
You come back with the response "slightly more than half of us are theists..."
Which, as you learned, is true. About 99.7 percent of people with doctorates in biology accept the fact of evolution, (would you like to know how I know that?) and most of us are theists of some sort.
Look at you for example. You say you are a theist and at the same time you say you are an evolutionist.
Actually, I don't say I'm an evolutionist. I'm just a biologist, and of course, that means I'm aware that evolution is an observed fact.
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 14:34:13
...
We don't know for sure if animals have souls. ...
The Hebrew words for "soul" and "spirit" were used in regard to animals before they were used in regard to humans. But given the flexibility of definitions, that tidbit is hardly probative.
Questions for everyone.
Can you prove there is a soul?
Can you prove there is a spirit?
Is their scientific proof without resorting to what the bible says?
Because if any part of it would be metaphorical as Avz suggested in.... "The part of scripture where God created man and made him a living soul, comes straight out of the same event that you have declared metaphorical," then I suggest that would apply to any event or verse in the Holy Book.
In the language of the Genesis creation account, soul is simply living being.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures [Heb - nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures[agian HEB- nephesh] according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature [here also HEB - nephesh].
We are living creatures; we are living beings; we are living souls.
You wondered about the metaphorical. It says in verse 7 above that God breathed into his nostrils. Does God breath? Is that a literal statement or figurative, i.e., metaphorical.
It also says there that God breath into him the breath of life. What is the breath of life? Some, me included, take that to be the spirit of man. In Hebrew that breath is neshamah.
neshâmâh
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
In the Old Testament and the New Testament, when it speaks of a man, soul and spirit are treated almost identically and interchangeably. Nevertheless there is a distinction to be made.
So again, is the manner in which God introduced the spirit of man into him presented in literal of figurative terms? I say it is spoken in a figurative manner. God does not literally breath anything -- in or out. Did what is figuratively described actually happen? That is, did God actually impart into Adam and Eve their spirits? I say yes. It was actually done, it was figuratively described.
: 4WD Tue Jan 15, 2019 - 08:48:20
In the language of the Genesis creation account, soul is simply living being.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures [Heb - nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures[agian HEB- nephesh] according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature [here also HEB - nephesh].
We are living creatures; we are living beings; we are living souls.
You wondered about the metaphorical. It says in verse 7 above that God breathed into his nostrils. Does God breath? Is that a literal statement or figurative, i.e., metaphorical.
It also says there that God breath into him the breath of life. What is the breath of life? Some, me included, take that to be the spirit of man. In Hebrew that breath is neshamah.
neshâmâh
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
In the Old Testament and the New Testament, when it speaks of a man, soul and spirit are treated almost identically and interchangeably. Nevertheless there is a distinction to be made.
So again, is the manner in which God introduced the spirit of man into him presented in literal of figurative terms? I say it is spoken in a figurative manner. God does not literally breath anything -- in or out. Did what is figuratively described actually happen? That is, did God actually impart into Adam and Eve their spirits? I say yes. It was actually done, it was figuratively described.
Thank you 4WD for giving me your perceived biblical proof.
I will disagree with you in that God is able to breath if He wishes.
I personally take
Gen 1- 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
likeness....
Cambridge dictionary
likeness
noun [ C ] US /ˈlɑɪk·nəs/
a similarity:
Sandy bears a much stronger likeness to her mother than to her father.
A painting, photograph, or other representation described as a good likeness looks very similar to the person or thing it represents.
Merriam Webster dictionary
likeness noun
like·ness | \ ˈlīk-nəs \
Definition of likeness
1 : COPY, PORTRAIT
2 : APPEARANCE, SEMBLANCE
3 : the quality or state of being like : RESEMBLANCE
Hebrew Interlinear says
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר 26 And said אֱלֹהִ֔ים God נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ let Us make אָדָ֛ם man
בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ in Our image כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ according to Our likeness
[/color]
Even ancient Hebrew says likeness... BUT that is a discussion for another day and thread
We know Moses was on the Mount "hearing" God with His ears.... or are you suggesting that God communicated telepathically?
God can breath . God can do whatever He wants. Godd has no limitations.....
But if you have a problem with this concept that God breathed life into man... then you HAVE to have problems with all of the written word.
Jesus talked in parables.... so we would know that they were not true He would tell us it was a parable... but used as an example ...
But you missed an explanation of
How can you prove there is a soul or a spirit?
Say you are talking to someone ... an agnostic... who poo poos the idea when soul or spirit are mentioned , nit believing either exists and certainly not believing something written in some book (Bible) that they do not believe in....
Can science prove there is a soul or a spirit?
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 08:47:50
No, that's the problem. You seem to be unclear on evolution, which is a directly observed phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, which explains it. And I'm thinking you're probably confusing both of those with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.
I don't think you are stupid. It takes intelligence to ready through scientific journals in your field of study. It also takes a keen sense of reading comprehension. I think you know exactly what I meant, and common descent in this thread has commonly been referred to in an imprecise manner as "evolution."
: The Barbarian Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 23:05:53
Barbarian observes:
Guess how I know you don't know many scientists. In fact, slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims. But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.
Absolutely true. For example, Gould considers the issue of a "soul" a purely religious issue, not a scientific one.
Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist.
Which, as you learned, is true. About 99.7 percent of people with doctorates in biology accept the fact of evolution, (would you like to know how I know that?) and most of us are theists of some sort.
Actually, I don't say I'm an evolutionist. I'm just a biologist, and of course, that means I'm aware that evolution is an observed fact.
You keep on confusing evolution and religion.
They are different things.
Example:
My statement "Dawkins is a materialist and claims the "soul" is a product of DNA."
Your response "Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist."
Your response is irrelevant because not being sure about the existence of God is a theological issue, whilst saying the soul is a product of DNA is a biological issue.
Furthermore your claim that Dawkins is not sure that God does not exist is unintelligible. Dawkins is an Atheist.
The core meaning of atheism is that it rejects and denies the existence of a god.
People who are not sure are called Agnostics.
And people who are sure there is a God are called Deists.
But regardless of Dawkins being an Atheist or not, it is totally irrelevant to the question whether he believes the soul is a product of DNA or not.
One thing can be said however. Atheists by necessity must always seek for materialistic explanations.
Your claim that "Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally" is a contradiction in terms.
Atheists cannot appeal to the supernatural.
: 4WD Tue Jan 15, 2019 - 08:48:20
In the language of the Genesis creation account, soul is simply living being.
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures [Heb - nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures[agian HEB- nephesh] according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
In 1:30, nephesh has a meaning more along the lines of our topic, the invisible, immaterial, live-giving aspect of living beings.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature [here also HEB - nephesh].
[/i][/b]
This is one of those peculiar and even annoying inconsistencies obscured by English translations. The same English expression in 1:30 and here, but different underlying Hebrew.
And then in 6:17, another variant -- ruach instead of either nephesh or neshamah
We are living creatures; we are living beings; we are living souls.
You wondered about the metaphorical. It says in verse 7 above that God breathed into his nostrils. Does God breath? Is that a literal statement or figurative, i.e., metaphorical.
It also says there that God breath into him the breath of life. What is the breath of life? Some, me included, take that to be the spirit of man. In Hebrew that breath is neshamah.
neshâmâh
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
In three consecutive occurrences of "breath of life," "breath" is three different Hebrew words, as shown above.
Also, just for trivia(?) -- The verb, "breathed" in 2:7 is "naphash," which some consider to be the root of "nephesh."
Because of the flexibility and overlap of these terms, I get a little twitchy when anyone tries to be dogmatic and precise about them.
: NorrinRadd Wed Jan 16, 2019 - 03:28:25Because of the flexibility and overlap of these terms, I get a little twitchy when anyone tries to be dogmatic and precise about them.
It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit. His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit." I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation. I also believe, as I said, that when speaking of man, the Bible both in the OT and the NT use soul and spirit interchangeably. Particularly in the NT you will be correct 99% of the time to treat soul and spirit as one and the same.
: 4WD Wed Jan 16, 2019 - 04:15:33
It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit. His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit." I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation. I also believe, as I said, that when speaking of man, the Bible both in the OT and the NT use soul and spirit interchangeably. Particularly in the NT you will be correct 99% of the time to treat soul and spirit as one and the same.
I came out of Word-Faith teaching in the mid-'90s, after about ten years in it. In there, it's common to hear, "I am a spirit, I have a soul, I live in a body." They further define soul rather precisely as "mind, will, and emotions." It can be important to them to make that division between spirit and soul, because to them, "getting the revelation" in one's spirit about what Scripture is teaching is much more important than analyzing it with the intellect. I'm Pentecostal, so I do believe in being led by the Spirit, and that the Spirit "speaks" to us in ways that do not necessarily directly involve the mind, but the Faith people press those things way too far.
Long ago, around the time I was leaving my Faith church, I did a study on "soul" and "spirit," and found that they are probably not used completely interchangeably, but there is so much overlap that it's silly to make a dogma out of their being totally distinct.
I haven't heard of Word-faith teaching before.
: NorrinnRaddI did a study on "soul" and "spirit," and found that they are probably not used completely interchangeably, but there is so much overlap that it's silly to make a dogma out of their being totally distinct.
I agree; particularly when man and mankind are the objects of the discussion.
: 4WD Wed Jan 16, 2019 - 04:15:33
It was Wycliffes_Shillelagh, I believe, who presented what I believe is the best way to think of soul and spirit. His explanation was, "I am a soul; I have a body and a spirit." I believe that very succinctly lays out the best and most precise presentation.
I still hold that view, and it is correct for the entire OT, and most of the NT except for a few passages where Paul borrows from Greek philosophy to make a contrast. The two words aren't
quite synonyms in either Testament, but in Hebrew they are used as parallelisms anyway.
Think of it in terms of coffee. There's a mug (body). There's hot bean juice (spirit). But if I say "bring me my coffee" I want both the coffee and the mug, and it isn't necessary to make a differentiation. That's how soul is used right up until...
350BC. The Greek philosophers spent a bunch of time on the ideas of soul and spirit. They added nuance and meaning to both words - soul and spirit - which simply didn't exist before that time.
The OT authors lived and died before that time. Most NT writers show awareness of Greek ideas about the body and how it is animated, but they follow the OT authors in usage, taking the simpler view.
Paul, however, uses the two words in contrast to each other in 1Cor (probably elsewhere too) in their philosophic sense. In other epistles, he uses them in the same way the other Biblical authors do.
Trying to build a doctrine (the tri-partate man) based on it is foolishness. This is Greek philosophy; not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible mentions it, yes, in passing... to make a point. That doesn't mean Paul was a philosopher or that the Bible endorses the view.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Jan 16, 2019 - 12:43:43
I still hold that view, and it is correct for the entire OT, and most of the NT except for a few passages where Paul borrows from Greek philosophy to make a contrast. The two words aren't quite synonyms in either Testament, but in Hebrew they are used as parallelisms anyway.
Think of it in terms of coffee. There's a mug (body). There's hot bean juice (spirit). But if I say "bring me my coffee" I want both the coffee and the mug, and it isn't necessary to make a differentiation. That's how soul is used right up until...
350BC. The Greek philosophers spent a bunch of time on the ideas of soul and spirit. They added nuance and meaning to both words - soul and spirit - which simply didn't exist before that time.
The OT authors lived and died before that time. Most NT writers show awareness of Greek ideas about the body and how it is animated, but they follow the OT authors in usage, taking the simpler view.
Paul, however, uses the two words in contrast to each other in 1Cor (probably elsewhere too) in their philosophic sense. In other epistles, he uses them in the same way the other Biblical authors do.
Trying to build a doctrine (the tri-partate man) based on it is foolishness. This is Greek philosophy; not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible mentions it, yes, in passing... to make a point. That doesn't mean Paul was a philosopher or that the Bible endorses the view.
Jarrod
I was taught we are spirits, we live is a body and we have a soul. We need the body to keep us together........... but the body can and does war against us .
And that Paul, himself, had issues with his body himself. No one is exempt.
1 Corinthians 9:27 (NKJV)
27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
I don't think you are stupid. It takes intelligence to ready through scientific journals in your field of study. It also takes a keen sense of reading comprehension. I think you know exactly what I meant, and common descent in this thread has commonly been referred to in an imprecise manner as "evolution."
Thanks, I don't think you're stupid, either. The problem is that calling these three very different things "evolution" obfuscates the difference between them. Which is a problem for those who aren't aware of the differences.
I was taught we are spirits, we live is a body and we have a soul. We need the body to keep us together........... but the body can and does war against us .
It seems to become a more formidable opponent after six or seven decades of experience.
: The Barbarian Wed Jan 16, 2019 - 21:45:34
It seems to become a more formidable opponent after six or seven decades of experience.
+1 for that.......... truer words have never been spoken. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl