Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[4WD]

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.

Since you are among the fallen humanity and fallen humanity is wrong, then you must be wrong.

[Amo]

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.

[4WD]

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.

[Amo]

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.

[4WD]

Face 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. 

[Amo]

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?

[4WD]

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?

I think God meant the same thing in Exodus as He did in Genesis.

[Amo]

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. 

[soterion]

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.

[4WD]

I don't think so.

So much for looking at the evidence.  But of course that is your right.

....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.

[Amo]

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.

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.

[Amo]

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. 

[Jaime]

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?

[Amo]

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.

[4WD]

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, there is nothing in science or about science that precludes God.  Moreover science does not preclude miracles or providential actions. 

[4WD]

While there is evidence in the natural world of creation....

What evidence do you have of creation?

[soterion]

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.

[4WD]

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

[The Barbarian]

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.

[Jaime]

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.

[4WD]

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.

[Jaime]

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.

[4WD]

I 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.

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.

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.

Since 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.

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.

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Jaime]

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.

[4WD]

What 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.

[Jaime]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Jaime]

 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.

[Texas Conservative]

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."

[AVZ]

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.

[Alan]

When science contradicts scripture, it is spawned by Satan.

But it doesn't contradict scripture, that's just your spin on it.

[4WD]

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.

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.

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.

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

[AVZ]

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?

[The Barbarian]

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.