PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Outlook on evolution



MasterKnives
May 29th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Evolution has always been a topic of debate, but recently macro-evolution was finally proven (microevolution was proven in the 80's) The proof lies in the earliest of all homosapiens not having opposable thumbs or for that matter a "v-shaped" lower jaw line. Therefore the "approved" creationist argument would be false. However t he bible never states how the world was created or how long a day is to God. Could it be that god used the big bang and evolution as his creation method. watch the order the universe came together and the biblical order.

Big Bang/evolution
First darkness
Light
planets/water
water creatures
plants/land creatures
MAN


Creation
First darkness
Light
planets/water
water creatures
plants/land creatures
MAN



Could this mean god created through evolution possibly dont beleive the list above pick up your nearest bible

YawgmothsAvatar
May 29th, 2004, 09:32 PM
The problem with this is that it requires even the smallest amount of interpretation of the Bible, and we can't have that, can we? ;)

Turbo
May 29th, 2004, 10:54 PM
MasterKnives,

You left out the sun and moon and stars.

Dimo
May 29th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Turbo, I think that is included in the "planets/water" line.

Free-Agent Smith
May 30th, 2004, 12:37 AM
So you agree that everything came about in 7 days also?

Turbo
May 30th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Dimo

Turbo, I think that is included in the "planets/water" line. I think not.

The earth was greated on day one. The sun, the moon, and the stars were created on day four. But plant life was created on day three.

Is that consistant with the "Big Band/evolution" order of things? Do you know of any "Big Bang/evolutionist" who believes that plants (or the earth, for that matter) were around millions of years before the sun?

Also, MasterKnives says that according to Genesis plants were created along with land animals, after sea life. Not so: Plants were created on day three, sea life on day five, and land animals on day six along with man.

Dimo
May 30th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Nope. Astrophycisists do not claim that the earth was around before the sun. Do you believe that it was?

I don't think that Genesis is an exact scientific account. I do believe that it is close enough to warrant great consideration.

MasterKnives
May 31st, 2004, 04:08 PM
turbo light waqs created FIRST meaning the SUN you thinking of the stars in the night sky and that stuff on day 4. the sun and earth were created very close to eachother on the cosmic timeline that is still in debate.

and no i dont believe 7 days means 7 days. i think it means 7 "days" to god be it a day= week, month year millenia

Ross
June 1st, 2004, 05:17 AM
MasterKnives,

First, if whatever fossil record you're referring to did not show evidence of opposable thumbs, it couldn't have been a primate much less than a homo sapien. One of the define characterisitices of all primates is opposable thumbs.
http://www.psybox.com/web_dictionary/Primate.htm

Second, without more information, there is no way to tell if what you're referring to was on the 'path' to modern humans or one of the many off shoots.

Third, none of this would have mattered to a creationist anyway since the creationist would simply argue that this was one of the many poor human-like creatures that was destroyed by the Flood.

Ross

Turbo
June 1st, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by MasterKnives

turbo light was created FIRST meaning the SUN you thinking of the stars in the night sky and that stuff on day 4. the sun and earth were created very close to eachother on the cosmic timeline that is still in debate.

You are simply wrong, MasterKnives. The sun and the moon were created on the fourth day along with the stars.

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; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19



and no i dont believe 7 days means 7 days. i think it means 7 "days" to god be it a day= week, month year millenia Lucky for us, God made it quite clear that these days were in fact days:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 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. 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. Exodus 20:9-11

Why do you suppose the phrase "the evening and the morning were the [nth] day" is used for each day of Creation week, if not to establish that these were normal-lengthed days? How might God/Moses have stated it any clearer if in fact they were normal-lengthed days?

Aussie Thinker
June 1st, 2004, 10:23 PM
Turbo,

Cmon.. the Master Knives KNOWS the biblical account MUST be interpreted if it is to be correct.

He KNOWS the world wasn’t made in 6 Normal modern days.

If God said it was he is either wrong or a man made up story pretending to be God.

Now (like you) he chooses to interpret “days” to be vast eons.. and why shouldn’t he.

Before we had a sun.. what the hell was a day. YOU interpret it to mean a “normal” day yet the Bible states at other times that a day to God could be as a 1,000 years.

His interpretation is WRONG according to you.. but your impossible one.. is right ???

I would think the interpretation that fits with what we KNOW would be the correct one ?

BTW Master Knives.. welcome to the world of religion that makes sense.

Guy Incognito
June 5th, 2004, 01:41 PM
....so you [Masterknives] believe that God used a system that doesn't work to create life.

Turbo
June 5th, 2004, 04:50 PM
:chuckle:

Welcome back, Guy! :wave2:

Dimo
June 5th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Masterknives, I also find it interesting that after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil birth pains were increased. This follows logically with the human evolutionary idea that a larger brain and frontal lobe, in ratio to the overall body size, brought about more difficult and painful labor for hominids.

Also I don't think you are going to get any agreement from those who see life in black or white. For those people things are either entirely correct or entirely incorrect. And of course their religious masters tell them that their particular interpretation of Genesis is entirely correct, and all other opinions are entirely incorrect.

Turbo
June 5th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Dimo, you don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

Dimo
June 7th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Turbo posted:

Dimo, you don't know what you're talking about.


Dimo:

From Genesis chapter 3:

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Or possibly you were referring to this paragraph from my post:

"Also I don't think you are going to get any agreement from those who see life in black or white. For those people things are either entirely correct or entirely incorrect. And of course their religious masters tell them that their particular interpretation of Genesis is entirely correct, and all other opinions are entirely incorrect."

Turbo, please enlighten me, so that I can know what I am talking about. Or did you really mean that you don't know what I'm talking about?

Turbo
June 7th, 2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Dimo

Turbo, please enlighten me, so that I can know what I am talking about. Or did you really mean that you don't know what I'm talking about?

"And of course their religious masters tell them that their particular interpretation of Genesis is entirely correct, and all other opinions are entirely incorrect."

One does not need to refer to some religious guru to plainly interpret the first chapters of Genesis. When I was an agnostic evolutionist I easily recognized that the Bible's Creation account was blatently incompatible with evolution.

What is your motivation for trying to force the Bible to conform to your secular evolutionist dogma? Why not just say that if evolution/the Big Bang is true, then Bible is wrong?

Do you concede MasterKnives thesis is incorrect, since according to Genesis 1 the sun and the moon and the stars were created after the earth and after plant life?

Dimo
June 8th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Turbo posted:

What is your motivation for trying to force the Bible to conform to your secular evolutionist dogma? Why not just say that if evolution/the Big Bang is true, then Bible is wrong?

Dimo

Because that is not what I believe. I do not know for certain that the current naturalistic model is entirely accurate. I do believe everything that scriptures says in my heart. For me there is a difference between the collective human intellectual knowledge of science and individual heartfelt spiritual knowledge of scripture.

Turbo posted:

Do you concede MasterKnives thesis is incorrect, since according to Genesis 1 the sun and the moon and the stars were created after the earth and after plant life?

Dimo:

You have just confirmed my claim that your black or white thinking forces you to divide these issues into two strict categories. Those categories being correct or incorrect. My experience in life has shown me that this is not realistic. Some concepts are less accurate, others are more accurate. Your views are less accurate than most.