Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

I'm afraid that genetic evidence suggests otherwise. Unless Noah and his wife lived in Africa about 20,000-60,000 years apart from one another

Genetic evidence supports the Biblical creation account. Geneticists wonder why with our high mutation rate we have not gone extinct. One very possible answer is because humanity has not been on earth near as long as common ancestry beliefs require.

Genetic evidence baffled evolutionists in the past showing all humanity is "one blood" as the Bible says. Women and black skin people are not less evolved than white males.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Dear pops,

Jesus spoke in parables so that his disciples, in the future, would understand his message. He did it so that the wicked and Pharisees would not be able to understand, lest they be saved out of necessity because they would repent. The Lord didn't want the Pharisees and Sadducees to understand, because the Lord didn't want them to be saved in their lifetimes. I know it's hard to understand and I can't go into specifics because that would be a long post indeed. Maybe some other time. Hope this helps.

May God Watch Over You From Above And Guide Your Path,

Michael

So do you understand were I am coming from when I say the bible isn't as a necessity only to be taken in literal materialistic fashion? Do you agree at all that when written law of Moses could have been distorted or manipulated somewhere along the way? Have you read of the chastisement and rebuking of the Jew within the OT?

In a couple of cases at least were Jesus the Christ expounded upon the parables to His disciples He makes it quite clear that their understanding is flawed due to literal interpretation of His teachings.

We know without a doubt that our Lord GOD indeed chastised the Jew, and for a long time. It is prophesied in the OT and happened throughout history.

With that being said, I personally cannot say that literally all of the OT is without misdirection, even if unintentionally.

History is to learn from. We learn from the bible that the Jew had been chosen by GOD, but generally failed to heed that calling. So how can any, with a free conscience, say that the OT is now at this time, perfect.

Thank you for your leveled conversation.
Thank you for not mistaking this for an attack on your beliefs of faith. It is not.

Peace brother

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops... not sure which 'testimony' you are referring to, or what your question really is.
I think you would agree that God's Word is perfect / inerrant? Wouldn't you agree that each book in the Bible is part of the complete unit? *

Trusting what the creation account vs various manifestations of evolution IS the topic.*

I do agree that the Word of GOD is perfect. I don't limit the Word of GOD to books written by men inspired to different degrees by the Holy Spirit.

I do believe they are parts of a full set, but don't limit that set to the books in the canon bible alone.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

@PopstheBuilder

Re: If you believe that the written translation of the OT that we have today is perfection and wholly utter truth, then why was there a need for another testament?

Your question does not actually relate to your stated assumption.

There is the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and it seems your question refers to these because it speaks of "translation." If this is what you meant, there is nothing wrong with either Old or New Testament in this regard. The division between these two testaments is entirely artificial, and an arbitrary construct of men that distinguish between Hebrew and Greek.

However, if you meant "another testament" as in the testament that is made in Christ's blood, it has no relation to the perfection and accuracy of the Hebrew scripture. In that sense the testament is made by a testator, and there is death to cement that testament. The first testament of the blood of bulls and goats does not provide for the remission of sins and eternal life. The testament made in the blood of Christ does. See Matthew 26:28 KJV, Mark 14:24 KJV, Luke 22:20 KJV, 1 Cor 11:25 KJV, Hebrews 9:15 KJV.


Re: If the bible, in it's entirety is to be taken wholly literally, then why did the Christ teach only in parables?

Your question is derailed in the assumption. The bible is not meant to be taken wholly literally, because elements of parables are not to be taken literally.

Christ taught in parables so that the multitude would not understand, and see, and believe, and be healed. See Matthew 13:10 KJV, Luke 8:10-12 KJV.

Genesis, including its account of the creation of the heavens and the earth and mankind, is not presented as a parable.

Re: Yes it says 6 days, but it doesn't follow that it must be a literal 24 hour period 6 times. You attesting that all other instances in the OT are referring to a standard day is somewhat moot since the topic at hand is in reference to a time before man, or the sun even.

You're getting sidetracked on "24 hours." Regardless of the length of time, these days are defined as "morning and evening" - that is, a period of darkness followed by a period of light. If you want to suppose that the earth spun slightly faster then and this was 11 hour days and 11 hour nights, go ahead. But there's no way that you're going to get eons of time with the definition God already gave. That, and the same mornings and evenings are used for the definitions of day, today.

Re: *could you refer me to were Jesus teaches that in the beginning the was humans? I'm not familiar with it to be completely honest.

Matthew 19:4 KJV
(4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

That sounds like what you were referencing.

 

[Rosenritter]

6Days, PopsTB: Any chance of sticking to the Creation vs Evolution topic here? DO we really need to carry the thread hijacking from the old to the new thread?

We're entirely on subject. This isn't a "biblical vs atheist" thread, even if that's what you've come to presume.

 

[gcthomas]

Women and black skin people are not less evolved than white males.

No, and Darwin didn't claim that they were, despite previous claims. And I haven't claimed that, and I don't know of any reputable evolutionary scientist who has claimed such a thing. So who are you arguing against here?

 

[6days]

No, and Darwin didn't claim (Women and black skin people are less evolved than white males), despite previous claims. And I haven't claimed that, and I don't know of any reputable evolutionary scientist who has claimed such a thing. So who are you arguing against here?

Darwin seemed to think that having a wife was better than having a dog and that man has ultimately become superior to woman. In 'Descent of Man' Darwin definitely thought since men evolved that some races had evolved faster than others. He believed white skin people like himself were better than other people like pygmies and blacks, whom he called "low", "degraded" and "lower organisms".

That's just a bit of Darwin's views, since you ask about him. Its certainly easy to find even worse statements from other evolutionists.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Darwin seemed to think that having a wife was better than having a dog and that man has ultimately become superior to woman. In 'Descent of Man' Darwin definitely thought since men evolved that some races had evolved faster than others. He believed white skin people like himself were better than other people like pygmies and blacks, whom he called "low", "degraded" and "lower organisms".

That's just a bit of Darwin's views, since you ask about him. Its certainly easy to find even worse statements from other evolutionists.

Darn, you mean to say that all evolutionists weren't socialist liberals?

 

[gcthomas]

In 'Descent of Man' Darwin definitely thought since men evolved that some races had evolved faster than others. He believed white skin people like himself were better than other people like pygmies and blacks, whom he called "low", "degraded" and "lower organisms".

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...vs-Evolution&p=4827315&viewfull=1#post4827315

You claimed this three weeks ago, and you were unable to provide the quotes showing Darwin thought of the pygmies as less biologically evolved, relying instead on Creationist sites for your misleading claims. I searched ALL THREE Darwin books at the time and could not find what you claimed, as you know. This has been pointed out to you, yet you persist in your libel.

When you persist in a self-serving falsehood despite knowing it to be false, it goes from mistake to an outright lie. You are lying, 6Days, and you should have the honour to accept that you have been mislead by your go to sites.

 

[Interplanner]

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...vs-Evolution&p=4827315&viewfull=1#post4827315

You claimed this three weeks ago, and you were unable to provide the quotes showing Darwin thought of the pygmies as less biologically evolved, relying instead on Creationist sites for your misleading claims. I searched ALL THREE Darwin books at the time and could not find what you claimed, as you know. This has been pointed out to you, yet you persist in your libel.

When you persist in a self-serving falsehood despite knowing it to be false, it goes from mistake to an outright lie. You are lying, 6Days, and you should have the honour to accept that you have been mislead by your go to sites.

Does that really matter when he declared that perhaps within 1 or 2 centuries all the inferior species of homo sapiens would be eliminated? The frontplate of the originals of OS were dedicated to racial superiority, which everyone in Europe knew until the embarrassing thing called the Third Reich.

 

[Interplanner]

Two good new treatments on designed creation are:

Axe: UNDENIABLE.

And the doc THE ATHEIST DELUSION. Very simply illustrated with it's 'book' analogy.

 

[gcthomas]

Does that really matter when he declared that perhaps within 1 or 2 centuries all the inferior species of homo sapiens would be eliminated?

He thought that they would be wiped out by the more technologically advanced societies. Pretty close to what actually happened, really.

The frontplate of the originals of OS were dedicated to racial superiority, which everyone in Europe knew until the embarrassing thing called the Third Reich.

No. The frontplate did no such thing. You are woefully mistaken here, I'm afraid.

 

[MichaelCadry]

No, and Darwin didn't claim that they were, despite previous claims. And I haven't claimed that, and I don't know of any reputable evolutionary scientist who has claimed such a thing. So who are you arguing against here?

Dear gcthomas,

Hey Buddy!! Do you feel like everyone's out to get you, eh? I'm sorry about that and I just hate it when I can't give you a Thanks for each post you write. You know me. We don't always agree but you hold your own. It's a nice dead Sunday night. So much other stuff to contend with that I've been putting off on doing. I need to play my 12-string and sing some songs. It's nourishment for the soul and spirit of God within me. It helps a lot. I've got a $500 amp and that was the price years ago. Now it's probably worth a $1,000 easy. It's so loud that I can only crank it up to No. 1 on the volume knob. It goes up to 9, to give you an idea. It is meant for singing from a stage, like a concert hall or something. My sister Diana wants it badly, so I will probably leave it in my Will for her. She was never able to get the money and circumstances to get one for herself.

Okay, well if you want a Thanks for me, please write a neutral post or something. God Be With You!!

Best Regards & Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Darwin seemed to think that having a wife was better than having a dog and that man has ultimately become superior to woman. In 'Descent of Man' Darwin definitely thought since men evolved that some races had evolved faster than others. He believed white skin people like himself were better than other people like pygmies and blacks, whom he called "low", "degraded" and "lower organisms".

That's just a bit of Darwin's views, since you ask about him. Its certainly easy to find even worse statements from other evolutionists.

Dear 6days,

I believe you and what you say. I have always felt that way since you came onto my Creation thread. God has gifted you with the right words to say at just the right time. He does the same with me, but when He doesn't, you come shining through with a rescue for me! You must have really studied a lot to be so adept at those things you speak of. I'm not so lucky. I hate to read and write, because I wrote a book, had seven revisions, reading and writing, and editing the book, over and over. So you can understand hopefully why I am so tired of writing and reading. But I don't mind writing posts here and reading others' posts here. It's much easier.

Well, if you want to go back and retrieve something you wrote before, my old Creation Thread is under the Thread Archives and Hall of Fame. I'd best a few of you would like to go there and glean back good posts that you took so long to write and post. Now you know. Okay, I'm going to make a three-cheese omelet and head on into bed for the night.

May God Always Bless The Fruits Of Your Soul And Heart!!

Michael

 

[6days]

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...vs-Evolution&p=4827315&viewfull=1#post4827315

You claimed this three weeks ago, and you were unable to provide the quotes showing Darwin thought of the pygmies as less biologically evolved, relying instead on Creationist sites for your misleading claims. I searched ALL THREE Darwin books at the time and could not find what you claimed, as you know. This has been pointed out to you, yet you persist in your libel.

When you persist in a self-serving falsehood despite knowing it to be false, it goes from mistake to an outright lie. You are lying, 6Days, and you should have the honour to accept that you have been mislead by your go to sites.

When I click on your link, I find that this is what I said "In Darwins first book he discussed "Favored races" (Discussing animals and plants) and then applied that theory to humanity in 'Descent of Man'. The Nazi's, Japanese and many others applied Darwin's ideas about some savage human groups, and lower organisms as being more apelike, or less highly evolved. In fact, Darwins ideas about savages was used to put a pygmy in a chimpanzee cage in a zoo (Name was Ota Benga) The racist ideas were ingrained into society and when a pastor complained, the New York Times justified the racist display saying that 'evolution is in the textbooks, and is as factual as the multiplication table'.

 

[gcthomas]

6days: can you point to any actual quote where Darwin refers to pygmies or native Africans as 'lower organisms'?

You keep claiming it, but no quote is forthcoming. I think you can't fond such a quote because he never said such a thing, but you are incapable of saying so. Be honest, you have made a mistake trusting the blogs on this.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

can you point to any actual quote where Darwin refers to pygmies or native Africans as 'lower organisms'?

You keep claiming it, but no quote is forthcoming. I think you can't fond such a quote because he never said such a thing, but you are incapable of saying so. Be honest, you have made a mistake trusting the blogs on this.

"I consider the Negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."
Source

One of many.

 

[gcthomas]

"I consider the Negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."
Source

One of many.

That wasn't a quote from Darwin. Can you help 6days find his alleged Darwin quotes? He isn't having much luck.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

That wasn't a quote from Darwin. Can you help 6days find his alleged Darwin quotes? He isn't having much luck.

Please use the source link next time.

I will oblige you, though.

"On the last page of his book, "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "Savage." In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low," and "degraded" to describe American Indians, pygmies, and almost every ehtnic group whose physical appearnace and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms"...

Same source as listed above.

 

[gcthomas]

Please use the source link next time.

I will oblige you, though.

"On the last page of his book, "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "Savage." In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low," and "degraded" to describe American Indians, pygmies, and almost every ehtnic group whose physical appearnace and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms"...

Same source as listed above.

I used the link. Your previous post misrepresented a quote from Haekel as one from Darwin. This post of yours above doesn't provide the quote itself. I could not fund the phrase 'lower organism' in any of Darwin's books, in any context.

Please, provide a quote instead of a paraphrase.

Edit: I have found "lower organism" in one book (The Foundations of Origin of the Species) but it didn't refer to humans,