Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Michael2012]

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.

[Michael2012]

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? 

[Michael2012]

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.

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.

[Michael2012]

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

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.

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? 

[4WD]

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Amo]

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.

[Michael2012]

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? 

[4WD]

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.

[4WD]

Pro 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.

[4WD]

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.

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.

[Alan]

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.

[Carey]

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.

[/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. 

[Michael2012]

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[AVZ]

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.

[Amo]

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.

[Amo]

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[AVZ]

[/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?

[4WD]

I agree with Moses.

And I agree with what God had Moses write.

Please 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.

....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.

[4WD]

Was 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.

[4WD]

In 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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[4WD]

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. 

[The Barbarian]

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

[The Barbarian]

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.

[The Barbarian]

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.

[The Barbarian]

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.

[Michael2012]

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.

[Michael2012]

So you believe your body was created by evolution.

Actually, the species H. sapiens was created by evolution.   

What's the difference?

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.

Well then, stick with your evidence sir. I'll stick to God's words.

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

Nothing in there sir. Perhaps if scriptures is scientific writings, you would understand it better.

[The Barbarian]

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.