Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Dear 6days,

Wow, your middle name is Duane?

Yup... It is not Hippocrates!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

Hippocrates? Who was he? Some philosopher? I will PM you later 2nite to find out your last name. Be back in a couple hours! You know that I respect you very much and am so glad to have you as a good friend!!

Praise Jesus,

Michael

P.S. I don't know Jesus' middle name or last name! Heheeheee!

 

[6days]

This is truly classic coming from someone who regularly itemizes the missteps that scientists have made in studying evolution.

Speaking of missteps based on atheistic assumptions..... Apparently some Oxford researchers now think the universe could be 250 times bigger than current estimates. And, they are suggesting that galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are too "well formed" to have occurred right after the Big Bang (Falsely assuming the 'Big Bang' as their starting point). It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/big-universe-attempting-answer-one-230016820.html

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder why creationists like 6days think that scientists are supposed to know absolutely everything about everything in the universe right now, whereby whenever they discover something new or revise previous estimates, it's an embarrassment rather than just the inevitable progress of human knowledge.

Nah...I'm kidding. I don't really wonder. It's just more creationist mud-slinging.

 

[redfern]

Speaking of missteps based on atheistic assumptions..... Apparently some Oxford researchers now think the universe could be 250 times bigger than current estimates. And, they are suggesting that galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are too "well formed" to have occurred right after the Big Bang (Falsely assuming the 'Big Bang' as their starting point). It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/big-universe-attempting-answer-one-230016820.html

I see you can’t author a simple commentary on issues on the extremes of science without phrasing it as indictment of atheism and evolution. Too bad your religious fanaticism prevents you from acknowledging that scientific “missteps” were the products of scientists of many religious leanings, and were not just due to “atheistic assumptions”. In fact, if science were to heed the advice of many Creationists, then questions like the one you linked to would be answered by simply saying “Goddidit”.

Maybe someday, probably after hell freezes over, you will show that you understand that cosmologists and evolutionists deal with widely separated issues in science. But they do have one thing in common, and that is an understanding that the world is more than 6,000 years old – much, much more.

 

[Rosenritter]

And so it is, Jesus left the law and Judaism to itself. He didn't come to reform Judaism or the man made laws, he established the kingdom of heaven wherein Gods will becomes the law of our hearts.

Your technical argument doesn't mean that Jesus thought God wrote the OT.

It certainly indicates in that direction. However, the way Jesus used the Old Testament does demonstrate that he thought it authentic.

Luke 4:4 KJV
(4) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Matthew 19:4-5 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,
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

John 5:39 KJV
(39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke 24:25-27 KJV
(25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
(26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
(27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 12:24 KJV
(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?


I think it's pretty clear from these other evidences that Jesus thought God wrote the Old Testament.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I see you can’t author a simple commentary on issues on the extremes of science without phrasing it as indictment of atheism and evolution. Too bad your religious fanaticism prevents you from acknowledging that scientific “missteps” were the products of scientists of many religious leanings, and were not just due to “atheistic assumptions”. In fact, if science were to heed the advice of many Creationists, then questions like the one you linked to would be answered by simply saying “Godddiit”.

Maybe someday, probably after hell freezes over, you will show that you understand that cosmologists and evolutionists deal with widely separated issues in science. But they do have one thing in common, and that is an understanding that the world is more than 6,000 years old – much, much more.

Dear redfern,

6days does us a good service here. Just remember that and appreciate it! If it weren't for 6days, this thread would have died a long time ago. I know it does appear or seem to be that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, and for that answer, we must wait just a short bit longer. These are the days of the Apocalypse and all mysteries of God shall be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets. See Rev. 10:7KJV. It would be good for you to read the words in the Scriptures. There's a lot that is going on that you don't have an inkling about, so be kind to your fellow brethren here. We are all brothers and sisters having Noah and his family as our main ancestors.

May God Be With You!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear PneumaPsucheSoma,

So another birtday, eh? I hope that this one stands out as a very exceptional one and full of joy! You will only have This Birthday once in your life. So enjoy it!! May God Make Your Day Full Of Wonder!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer:

 

[Caino]

It certainly indicates in that direction. However, the way Jesus used the Old Testament does demonstrate that he thought it authentic.

Luke 4:4 KJV
(4) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Matthew 19:4-5 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,
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

John 5:39 KJV
(39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke 24:25-27 KJV
(25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
(26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
(27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 12:24 KJV
(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?


I think it's pretty clear from these other evidences that Jesus thought God wrote the Old Testament.

Indeed, Jesus referenced the sacred scriptures which were intended for spiritual instruction but you are taking a tremendous leap when saying Jesus believed the scripture was perfect and written by God. The scriptures represent mans evolving understanding of God. They get better such as 2 Samuel 24 compared to the understanding of the same event 200 years later in 1 Chronicles 21.

In Luke 5:14 Jesus instructs the lepers he had healed to go and present themselves to the priests, but then later Jesus excoriates this same priest class: "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell? Because of this, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation."

It was the same priest class who collected the sacred spiritual truths and organized them into a rather biased, segregated history of their own while in Babylon.

Jesus took the positive approach of extracting the truths of the scripture while letting the errors die on the vine.

The facts of earths long history that can be seen in the archeological record are completely at odds with the Hebrew priests pseudo biographical creation story.

 

[gcthomas]

Speaking of missteps based on atheistic assumptions..... Apparently some Oxford researchers now think the universe could be 250 times bigger than current estimates. And, they are suggesting that galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are too "well formed" to have occurred right after the Big Bang (Falsely assuming the 'Big Bang' as their starting point). It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/big-universe-attempting-answer-one-230016820.html

I've read the actual paper this article hints at, but it seems neither the authors of the beginners' web page, nor you, have taken any care to be accurate.

1. They didn't claim that the universe was 250 times bigger than current estimates: they provided a better estimate for the size of the actual universe compared to the Hubble Sphere volume. The Hubble Sphere is substantially smaller than even the observable universe, so the 251x volume figure reduces to 6.5 times the radius of the observable universe. Which corresponds rather closely with some previously expressed figures based on observed curvature limits.

2. The paper doesn't mention galaxy ages. At all. In fact, galaxies are only mentioned once, and only in passing and referring to their red-shifts.

3. They made no comments that could possibly be taken as claiming that the age of the universe was in any way different to the current best measurements. The paper was about size, not age.

So, 6Days, you make three clear statements and all three are either lies or ignorant errors. The paper is here: please educate yourself, if you have any desire to partake in personal improvements.

 

[6days]

The facts of earths long history that can be seen in the archeological record are completely at odds with the Hebrew priests pseudo biographical creation story.

Actually, the words of Jesus and archaeology help confirm the truth of what Moses wrote.

 

[6days]

I see you can’t author a simple commentary on issues on the extremes of science without phrasing it as indictment of atheism and evolution.

Science does help confirm the truth of God's Word...and exposes the religious nature of evolutionism.

Too bad your religious fanaticism prevents you from acknowledging that scientific “missteps” were the products of scientists of many religious leanings, and were not just due to “atheistic assumptions”.

The Missteps I talk about were the result of a false belief system and not science.

In fact, if science were to heed the advice of many Creationists, then questions like the one you linked to would be answered by simply saying “Godddiit”.

I call a hostile witness to refute you, Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Maybe someday, probably after hell freezes over, you will show that you understand that cosmologists and evolutionists deal with widely separated issues in science. But they do have one thing in common, and that is an understanding that the world is more than 6,000 years old – much, much more.

Lets clarify some terms
Evolutionists: Some are scientists...some not. Evolutionists believe in varying degrees of chemical evolution, stellar evolution and common ancestry.
Cosmologists: All are scientists who study the universe. Most are evolutionists but not all.

 

[6days]

1. They didn't claim that the universe was 250 times bigger than current estimates: they provided a better estimate for the size of the actual universe compared to the Hubble Sphere volume. The Hubble Sphere is substantially smaller than even the observable universe, so the 251x volume figure reduces to 6.5 times the radius of the observable universe.

Cool! But what I said was "Apparently some Oxford researchers now think the universe could be 250 times bigger than current estimates".
What the article says is "researchers at Oxford University in the United Kingdom who estimated the whole universe might be as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe."

2. The paper doesn't mention galaxy ages. At all. In fact, galaxies are only mentioned once, and only in passing and referring to their red-shifts.

Yes... And what I said was "It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs."

3. They made no comments that could possibly be taken as claiming that the age of the universe was in any way different to the current best measurements. The paper was about size, not age.

The paper did not suggest a different age. What I said was ""It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs."

So, 6Days, you make three clear statements and all three are either lies or ignorant errors.

It was simple to show you misrepresented what was said.

 

[Rosenritter]

Indeed, Jesus referenced the sacred scriptures which were intended for spiritual instruction but you are taking a tremendous leap when saying Jesus believed the scripture was perfect and written by God. The scriptures represent mans evolving understanding of God. They get better such as 2 Samuel 24 compared to the understanding of the same event 200 years later in 1 Chronicles 21.

In Luke 5:14 Jesus instructs the lepers he had healed to go and present themselves to the priests, but then later Jesus excoriates this same priest class: "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell? Because of this, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation."

It was the same priest class who collected the sacred spiritual truths and organized them into a rather biased, segregated history of their own while in Babylon.

Jesus took the positive approach of extracting the truths of the scripture while letting the errors die on the vine.

The facts of earths long history that can be seen in the archeological record are completely at odds with the Hebrew priests pseudo biographical creation story.

Is your theory falsifiable? Because Jesus used the scripture left and right, always as authoritative. He would say "it is written" or "is it not written?" as if he expected them to believe every word, as if there was no question as to whether they should believe it if "it was written." So can you show me anywhere that Jesus would say anything that would support your theory that he didn't use the scripture as if it were God's word, that it was precise, and to be believed literally?

Jesus literally believed the creation account in Genesis, we've shown that already.

 

[gcthomas]

Cool! But what I said was "Apparently some Oxford researchers now think the universe could be 250 times bigger than current estimates".
What the article says is "researchers at Oxford University in the United Kingdom who estimated the whole universe might be as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe."

And this is thoroughly wrong. It doesn't match what was written in the paper.

Yes... And what I said was "It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs."

Answer: It won't. It has nothing to do with the age of the universe, despite you quoting that the galaxies were too "well formed" — a complete fabrication.

The paper did not suggest a different age. What I said was ""It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs."
It was simple to show you misrepresented what was said.

Yet you claimed that it said that galaxies were too well formed for the timing of the Big Bang, which was a fabrication (or, if you like, a blatant lie). It is no misrepresentation to say that you lied. You lie all the time, and no 'quote' from a source is likely to be represented honestly by you.

So, why did you make the "too 'well formed'" claim, despite that being in neither the article or the original paper?

 

[Caino]

Actually, the words of Jesus and archaeology help confirm the truth of what Moses wrote.

But you live in self delusion, an alternative reality built on wishful thinking and quack science. Facts are just cognitive dissonance to you. Your religious pride wont allow you to concede the facts of real science.

 

[Caino]

Is your theory falsifiable? Because Jesus used the scripture left and right, always as authoritative. He would say "it is written" or "is it not written?" as if he expected them to believe every word, as if there was no question as to whether they should believe it if "it was written." So can you show me anywhere that Jesus would say anything that would support your theory that he didn't use the scripture as if it were God's word, that it was precise, and to be believed literally?

Jesus literally believed the creation account in Genesis, we've shown that already.

No, you have shown that at all, you provided the writings of Jews about Jesus in justification of them leaving their religion. They were attempting to make a seamless transition from Judaism to the new religion about Jesus. It's anything but seamless. The truth of the religion of Jesus discredits the old beliefs by default. That is why the Jews hated Jesus and don't believe in the Christian religion about him.


I quote the bible all the time where it is true, but that doesn't mean I think God wrote it. Jesus quoted truths and left the obvious errors to die on their own.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, you have shown that at all, you provided the writings of Jews about Jesus in justification of them leaving their religion. They were attempting to make a seamless transition from Judaism to the new religion about Jesus. It's anything but seamless. The truth of the religion of Jesus discredits the old beliefs by default. That is why the Jews hated Jesus and don't believe in the Christian religion about him.


I quote the bible all the time where it is true, but that doesn't mean I think God wrote it. Jesus quoted truths and left the obvious errors to die on their own.

Caino, please read.

Matthew 19:4-5 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,
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?


Jesus quoted Genesis, and affirmed that:

1) There was a beginning
2) In this beginning male and female were made (not evolved)
3) that God spoke the words credited to him in the Genesis account.

Jesus believed in special creation as described in Genesis. And why not? He's the one that created them in the first place, it was him speaking.

 

[6days]

What the article says is "researchers at Oxford University in the United Kingdom who estimated the whole universe might be as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe.

And this is thoroughly wrong. It doesn't match what was written in the paper.

You can debate that with the author of the article I referred to.

Yes... And what I said was "It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs."

Answer: It won't. It has nothing to do with the age of the universe, despite you quoting that the galaxies were too "well formed" — a complete fabrication.

I almost hate to quote Stripe on this, but you prove him correct, when he says 'evolutionists hate to read. The article says "The*most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."

It will be interesting over the next while to see how this changes evolutionary explanations of the age of the universe and other beliefs.

Yet you claimed that it said that galaxies were too well formed for the timing of the Big Bang, which was a fabrication (or, if you like, a blatant lie). It is no misrepresentation to say that you lied. You lie all the time, and no 'quote' from a source is likely to be represented honestly by you.

GC.... perhaps you missed it, but once again the article says "The*most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."

So, why*did*you make the "too 'well formed'" claim, despite that being in neither the article or the original paper?

The article says"The most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."

 

[gcthomas]

You can debate that with the author of the article I referred to.
I almost hate to quote Stripe on this, but you prove him correct, when he says 'evolutionists hate to read. The article says "The*most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."
GC.... perhaps you missed it, but once again the article says "The*most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."
The article says"The most distant galaxies in our universe are too well formed to have just appeared directly*after the Big Bang, which creates an entirely new conundrum."

Can't you read? Really 6Days. Get a grip.

I said that the article is wrong, since it says things that are not true and were never said by the scientists they quote. It is OK for you to quote it, but to persist in relying on a discredited source that is trivial to check out (JUST READ THE REFERENCED PAPER!!!) is to be knowingly false. To trust an idiotic article is idiotic. To link the paper to a conclusion about the age of the universe is stupid and unjustified, so I will say it again: the article is demonstrably wrong, and the fact that you don't care to check it even when it is draw to your attention show how dishonest you are.

Read the paper, then come back. If you need help with the long words, just ask.