User Tag List

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 352

Thread: creation vs evolution

  1. #76
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    And what is the driving force behind life on earth? How do you know?
    God. Because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:1.
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

  2. #77
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    God. Because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:1.
    Does your deity continue to be the driving force behind life on earth? Or once life started did your deity get out of the way?

  3. #78
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    God had no beginning. He also has no end. He is eternal because Psalms 90:2 tells us so "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.

    This tends to be a hard concept for humans to grasp as we think linearly and chronologically. This also demonstrates the limitations of human thinking in that we apply the same literal constraints that we as humans are subject to to everything else. God is a spirit. He has no limits. Equally its not possible to apply simple causative human logic to God when he is not subject to the constraints that we are as corporeal beings.

    Personally i tend to think of God like time. When did time begin......
    time began when the universe started. to those of us who accept science as opposed to some religious text with no basis other than circular reasoning (its true because the Bible says so and the Bible is always true because God wrote it because that is what is says in the Bible) time began about 13.8 billion years ago. Note that the 13.8 is based on our current understanding and subject to change given further research and information. I for one am comfortable with not being 100% certain on this and a # of topics other than the fact I would be greatly surprised if the information from scientists who study the cosmos is way way off.

  4. #79
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    time began when the universe started.
    And you know this HOW exactly? What scientific empiricism was used or could even be used to derive this? In fact how could you know this with any measure of certainty? Time is a concept. Its not something that can be measured and weighed and observed physically. Its a concept that governs the existence of sentient beings where time and chronology matters. EG a sequence of events. So are you suggesting no period of time passed prior to the existence of the Universe according to Science? If so how is it possible for you to know that....Either way this isn't important to me. I don't try and reconcile Science and theory with the Bible and vice versa. Thats a futile excercise in my opinion as the Bible is not a book of science. You're interested in the HOW. Im interested in the WHO, WHAT and WHY.
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

  5. #80
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    And you know this HOW exactly? What scientific empiricism was used or could even be used to derive this? In fact how could you know this with any measure of certainty? Time is a concept. Its not something that can be measured and weighed and observed physically. Its a concept that governs the existence of sentient beings where time and chronology matters. EG a sequence of events. So are you suggesting no period of time passed prior to the existence of the Universe according to Science? If so how is it possible for you to know that....Either way this isn't important to me. I don't try and reconcile Science and theory with the Bible and vice versa. Thats a futile excercise in my opinion as the Bible is not a book of science. You're interested in the HOW. Im interested in the WHO, WHAT and WHY.
    Well, you have the WHAT confused with reality.
    I am not an astronomer or cosmologist or physicist. But those who are come up with 13.8+/- billion years. Before that--no clue.

  6. #81
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,831
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 8,743 Times in 5,955 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by jason69 View Post
    Does believing in evolution mean that you cant believe in creation?
    This is pretty much a stupid question.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 6th, 2017)

  8. #82
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    837
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 191 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    37778
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    You posted the following in post #66 "I will post all the contradictory statements of scientists, as well as those who disagree and assert, as I do, that theories of evolution, abiogenesis, have been disproven..." And then later you post something from Darwin, from Wald and from Crick. Is that to disprove evolution? Are you suggesting that neither Darwin, Wald or Crick accepted evolution? Those men have written volumes yet you, and other creationists, cherry pick in an attempt to lend legitimacy to your position.
    That is simply dishonest. Even us fallen away Catholics know that.

    P.S. I looked back through some of your posts and you cited Gould as well. Gould is a particular favorite of quote mining knobs. Too bad he is not around to laugh.
    You misrepresented or misinterpret my quotes of Darwin, Wald, and Crick. They were never opposed to evolution. As evidence by their quotes. The first quotes I provided demonstrate this. Then, I quote them a second (sometimes a third time) to show contradictions in logic and scientific principles.

    Gould as well was a strong proponent of evolution. I never said the contrary. I did highlight that he agreed with evidence that I provided (being that the lines between nodes and points of evolutionary trees are all inference, void of fossil records and evidence). That does not make him a creationist. It simply showed that an evolutionist can accept that there is some dishonesty/misinformation being spread in regards to iconic images of evolution.

    You are placing a dishonest tactic where none exists.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  9. #83
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,904
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    time began when the universe started. to those of us who accept science as opposed to some religious text with no basis other than circular reasoning (its true because the Bible says so and the Bible is always true because God wrote it because that is what is says in the Bible) time began about 13.8 billion years ago. Note that the 13.8 is based on our current understanding and subject to change given further research and information. I for one am comfortable with not being 100% certain on this and a # of topics other than the fact I would be greatly surprised if the information from scientists who study the cosmos is way way off.



    Jonah,
    the circular reasoning issue is a bit more complicated. I can show you hundreds of instances in which the evolutionary geologic or fossil timing is circular. You'll find them at creationwiki. I'll use one which I consider a national embarrassment. BUILDING NORTH AMERICA was a PBS or NOVA piece and was discussing the age of certain dinosaurs found in the Patagonia area, one of those massive piles of remains. Nearby were acres of cracked shells, on the surface, the soft tissue partly eaten. Considering that it was high altitude and dry, the 'official' explanation is still a joke. Nothing organic looks that way after 60M years. You cannot have organic material, partly eaten (showing marks of being partly eaten), sitting out in the weather, sun, snow pack, wind for 60 frickin million years and have it look that recognizable, that intact. But NPR or NOVA said it and so we are just supposed to believe it? Or 10 'scientists' listed in the credits?

    On the Bible, there is one step involved that I don't think you have seen. The text is referring to objective reality. When it says the geosphere was formed and then it was filled, the progression is 1, logical (the structure must be there before, not after, the biological life), but 2, demonstrable. It is there and the thing is true in and out of the fact of being a sacred text.

    The thing about the Bible is you will find that the % of this is extremely high. It does not say things are true 'because it says so' as you might find in other mythologies. Rather, it says they are true to what is 'there.' I understand it will still be strange to hear of a talking snake, but we find out that he is not your average snake anyway. He is an evil figure in the drama of the world, confined to that form of appearing.

    My next point may seem a leap, but bear with me to see its reflexive or retroactive force. Come to the 1st century Judea, to Jesus healing a person in a private home, full of people, but also with some detractors present who doubt that he can 'forgive sins.' Of course, we all know any charlatan or comic can stand up and say they can forgive sins. But Jesus 'crosses' this line by saying 'So that you may know I can forgive sins (as the Son of God)--I say to the paralyzed man--'Get up and walk.' And he did. Obviously the total story of Christ would look entirely different if this had been a party gag. It happened in normal space and time, to prove that the other thing he said was to be believed in normal space and time.

    That section of Jesus' story has 4 quick scenes (Mk 2:1-3:6) and ends with the opposition planning his demise. You might say this 'crossover proof' of his claim immediately triggered the opposition to him, which lead to his death, which is one of the best attested small-scale facts of antiquity (as opposed to large items like the eruption of Vesuvius).

    This same person made the retroactive remarks I have mentioned earlier. He quotes early Genesis as normal meaning and narrative. It is not quoted as mythology because the framing is about questions like what to do on the sabbath or why marriage exists, and the whole sense in which early Genesis is quoted is normal meaning. Keep that in mind when going back to read.

    One of the more interesting things about early Genesis may actually be found in the literary disciplines. 2 British antiquities curators have shown that early Genesis logically predated the many copies and 2nd generation myths that are all over the world that are similar. That is to say in a literary sense. I have worked in some of this myself but will never get to the level of these people, so it is remarkable to have them consider the flow of logic that would reverse this conclusion (ie, thinking that Genesis is an evolved collection). It cannot be. The descriptions given, the settings and the dating of the material (when available and proven) all go to the other conclusion.

    Coming back to creation specifically (there being several fundamental global declarations found in early Genesis), I mentioned last week that the rate x time issue of creation is solved by God speaking things into existence. It may be of interest to you to know that the Suquamish (Washington State) tribal cosmology is the exact same. The Creating God just speaks things into existence. There is an interesting diversion from the Biblical record on this. It is that He gave this power to humans, and the word for this power is translated as 'form-changing.' He let them this do it for a while, and they would become plants or animals as they saw fit. They did some good things with it. But he later stops it because they simply used it to deceive each other. Nothing has this power anymore, says the narrative. All things reproduce after their kind.

    As we would expect, there are several ways this degenerated from what Genesis said, but one of the things that stays intact is objective reality or identity. The Creating God is still good, and holds the authority to enforce goodness against deception. Sometimes the truth of early Genesis is not just in the area of sciences but questions of human nature or philosophy.

    On youtube, see P. James-Griffiths "Tracing Genesis through Ancient Culture" for how early Genesis is reinforced in the fact of comparative cosmology, and for the 2 British antiquities comments.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  10. #84
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    837
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 191 Times in 162 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    37778
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    What are you trying to say with these Wald quotes?
    To illustrate the illogical manner that many atheists approach science and theory. It shows how Wald instantly contradicts his statement of "following the truth wherever it leads." The truth and evidence points to spontaneous generation being false and disproven; yet Wald accepts it because in his own words, the "alternative is intelligent design," which he refuses to accept or acknowledge.

    Wald was an atheist. He never supported intelligent design or creationism. Why would anyone imply the opposite? Once again, I think you are trying to see dishonesty where it is not evident.

  11. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    The universe is 4 dimensional. Our time is part of our universe.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  12. #86
    Over 4000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,319
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 244 Times in 199 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    58711
    The universe did not just happen. It is mathematically impossible for all this to have happened by chance. Actually looking at how precisely math defines physical laws, does chance exist?

  13. #87
    Over 4000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,319
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 244 Times in 199 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    58711
    Why not ask Him?

  14. #88
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    To illustrate the illogical manner that many atheists approach science and theory. It shows how Wald instantly contradicts his statement of "following the truth wherever it leads." The truth and evidence points to spontaneous generation being false and disproven; yet Wald accepts it because in his own words, the "alternative is intelligent design," which he refuses to accept or acknowledge.

    Wald was an atheist. He never supported intelligent design or creationism. Why would anyone imply the opposite? Once again, I think you are trying to see dishonesty where it is not evident.
    You need to read more Wald.

  15. #89
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    1,991
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 481 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204472
    Interplanner, no thanks on creationwiki. the stupid found there hurts.

  16. #90
    Old Timer SonOfCaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 106 Times in 90 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Well, you have the WHAT confused with reality.
    I am not an astronomer or cosmologist or physicist. But those who are come up with 13.8+/- billion years. Before that--no clue.
    Your definition of reality is based firmly on what YOU CHOOSE to believe is reality. The reality is neither Science nor you have any clue on what existed prior to the known Universe nor when 'time' relative to existence of the Universe began. All you have is assumptions and guesses. So lets not pretend these assertions were arrived at by any known empiricism. Science by its very nature is supposed to be A) empirical and B) Objective. Your opinions on the matter are distinctly NOT the lata which in my opinion is deeply ironic. In fact they're close to the realms of Science fiction. You CHOOSE to believe those dates merely because its fits your disposition. Science and religion have more in common than you're willing to admit.....
    Last edited by SonOfCaleb; May 6th, 2017 at 03:23 PM.
    John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us