Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Thanks for the encouraging words, which helps to keep this thread going.



Dear iouae,

I don't keep this thread going. It is the culmination of different posters who keep it going. The people who 'POST HERE.' Read everything first. There are reasons to consider other 'spoken words.' Why would Jesus have said that about God, the Father? So if we were down here in a playpen, while God has been trying various ways to replicate Himself, like it's some hard challenge, well I don't think so. We will find out the Truth when God takes us to be with Him. That is all that I want to say concerning the matter. There is more, but I will keep it to myself. God says that when He first created man, that He made them in His Image. Enough said for now.

May God Guide You,

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That means that whoever has seen him has also seen God because Jesus is supposed to be God.



Dear Greg Jennings,

I say that Jesus looks like God, evidently, or why else would He say that? Twins? I do believe He was with God before this world was. It is written, but I don't quite know which verse right now. It's in one of the four Gospels though/the New Testament/KJV.

God Watch Over Your Endeavors,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :rapture:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I just love the numbers of this thread - Best Thread Ever !!!


While I was an Auto Parts guy for 25 years I really loved numbers. Memorizing them, typing them on 10 key, looking up numbers and basic math. This thread has 915 pages and I think it has the most views. I crunched some numbers a few months ago and predicted when there would be a half million views; I forgot now but it's in this thread somewhere. Good job Michael for the upkeep and the "wide" variety.



Dear patrick jane,

You are SO KIND!! I was an Auto Parts guy for about 6 months. I can't use a 10 key, though. Only a keyboard's numbers. Patrick, it is people like you who keep the thread going. Don't you know that? Do you think I wave a magic wand? I pray though, but not for the site to last long. I pray for other things though, on my knees, and the readers on TOL, I pray for also. Not just on my thread, but for ALL of TOL!! Where else can you find such an awesome theology website to learn from and share in these days, remarkably. You could thank Knight for putting the ideas and website into something this excellent. He's the real deal!! I'm just a consumer, like you. He's the boss and creator!!

May God Watch Over You For His Will To Happen!!

Michael
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Because Jesus IS God. That's what he was saying. "Look upon me and you have looked upon God" means "Look upon me and you have seen God because I am he"


Dear Greg,

The best I'll go with you on this is that they are like Twins! God and Jesus are two separate beings, namely the Father and the Son. Jesus prayed to His Father {God, the Father} in the garden before His crucifixion. You could also say God, the Son, most likely. You must realize that Jesus said, "Before I go to the Father" in the Four Gospels after His Resurrection. So you've got to be able to see that they are two distinct but alike beings. That's what I have to say for now. Thanks for seeking to understand. That is commendable, dude!!

With Real Love From God And Me,

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear DavisBJ,

Why haven't I received your response to my Creation vs Evolution post #13658, on Pg. 911 here. No atheist responded to it. Is it because it is too correct?? It's better to dodge it, eh? It is a bit long, I guess. Not really though. Well, if you don't want to respond, maybe Hedshaker or gcthomas will. Whatever happened to The Barbarian?? And noguru and Stuu?? What is going on with the missing people here. I do hope they were not permanently banned. I don't know how a moderator could possibly monitor this whole website. Ayyyy!! Rough stuff, to say the least!! Well, you take good care and post back when you get the chance.

Warmest Regards,

Michael
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I know what "without form and void" means.
As you say, it means just that, which is how the earth became after a mass extinction.

Is 45:18 says...

18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

Here the word for "vain" is Strongs H8414, same word for "without form" in Gen 1:2.

So putting the two together, God did not create the earth "tohu".
Thus it must have become this way.
This is the dumbest piece of reasoning I have read in a while. :chuckle:

God did not create the world to be "void," therefore, where it was void, it must have become void...

:think:

EVOLUTION!!! :banana:
 

alwight

New member
Dear DavisBJ,

Why haven't I received your response to my Creation vs Evolution post #13658, on Pg. 911 here. No atheist responded to it. Is it because it is too correct?? It's better to dodge it, eh? It is a bit long, I guess. Not really though. Well, if you don't want to respond, maybe Hedshaker or gcthomas will. Whatever happened to The Barbarian?? And noguru and Stuu?? What is going on with the missing people here. I do hope they were not permanently banned. I don't know how a moderator could possibly monitor this whole website. Ayyyy!! Rough stuff, to say the least!! Well, you take good care and post back when you get the chance.

Warmest Regards,

Michael

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4509074&postcount=13658

Michael you seemed to have copied the above post from a creationist website:
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/creation-vs-evolution-is-there-evidence-for-creation/

You will find that most non-creationists are not interested in picking apart such creationist assertions that seem to lack any means of falsification. We need to know what you think rather than perhaps a professional creationist apologist. Such words are only really meant to encourage believers to keep believing, not to provide anything to examine, put to the test or verify.
 

iouae

Well-known member
You believe it but it isn't scriptural.


Trying to shoehorn billions of years into scripture has caused you to accept compromise.

Your false argument that "formless and void" (Hebrew- tohu wabohu) refers to something fallen in disrepair, or a state of chaos. So you suggest the translation should read 'became formless and void'.


Here is another perfect example of how a mass extinction (the 2nd coming of Christ) leaves the land "tohu wbohu" or without form and void.

Jer 4
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Where the SDA's go wrong thinking the whole earth is left uninhabited at the 2nd coming, is in not reading verse 27.

This shows how earth BECOMES "without form and void" at a mass extinction event, and is not the way it is created originally.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Let's look at the Genesis account and see why it CANNOT be describing the original creation at the very beginning, but a REGENERATION after the original creation.

here is Genesis 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.

Now my question to all is this....
Is Gen 1:2 onwards describing how God created the heavens and the earth (in other words elaborating on Gen 1:1)?

If you answer "Yes" then my reply to you will be "but verse 2 starts with an earth already there, albeit "without form and void". My follow up question would be "How did it get to be there (without form and void) if verses 2 onwards were an elaboration of verse 1"?

If you answer "No - verses 2 onwards do not describe verse 1 in more detail, but are a later state AFTER verse 1" then I have won my argument that verse 2 describes how the earth BECAME or was after verse 1. In other words verses 2 onwards have nothing to do with the original creation "in the beginning..". So verses 2 onwards are taking the story forward after the original creation.

Either way the Genesis account can only mean that "without form and void" is a LATER not original state.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How did it get to be there (without form and void) if verses 2 onwards were an elaboration of verse 1"?
Verse 1 is the answer to your nonsense question. :duh:

If you answer "No - verses 2 onwards do not describe verse 1 in more detail, but are a later state AFTER verse 1" then I have won my argument that verse 2 describes how the earth BECAME or was after verse 1. In other words verses 2 onwards have nothing to do with the original creation "in the beginning..". So verses 2 onwards are taking the story forward after the original creation.Either way the Genesis account can only mean that "without form and void" is a LATER not original state.
Therefore, EVOLUTION!!!11 :banana:

:mock: Darwinists.
 

Derf

Well-known member
(Added emphases in quotes, mine)
So you don't have any then? You could have just said.
@ Hedshaker: see gcthomas' reply:
There is good evidence for exactly that, don't you know.

This comment you responded to gcthomas kind of took me aback. It's well known to anyone who has done even the slightest bit of research on the subject that there is abundant evidence for global tsunamis over one mile high, and that this is thought to be a result of an asteroid impact in the Gulf of Mexico about 65 million years ago.

Derf here, like many creationists, seems completely oblivious of this. I'm always left wondering why people that are so disinterested in the truth that they can't even google something act like they are the authority on science. Utterly baffling

It's been the opinion of most of the scientific community for a couple decades now that the dinosaurs' extinction was a result of several factors resulting from the asteroid impact. The impact caused the sun to be blocked out by dust in the atmosphere, causing rapidly falling global temperatures and the death of a large amount of plant life. What happens when plants die? That's right, the dinosaurs that ate those plants die. And then the dinosaurs that ate those plant-eating dinos died.

It wasn't simply the impact that wiped them out completely

So, at least two of you seem to agree with me that there were global effects from an asteroid impact that included flooding. Thanks for the confirmation of evidence of global floods.

As far as other effects of asteroid impact, if the plants died from lack of sunlight or cooling temperatures, etc., and the dinosaurs that ate those plants died from starvation, how did they (plants and dinosaurs) fossilize? Plants in my yard don't fossilize when it gets cold. They don't seem to last too long, especially the non-woody plants. Neither do animals that die, most of the time.

So something unusual happened to make those plants fossilize, and it had to be related closely to the time period (days or weeks, perhaps) when they died. Somehow those plant fossils got encased in mud that hardened! Somehow the dinosaurs also got encased in mud.

There are two means that I know of that can quickly encase plants and animals so that they harden, volcanoes and floods. The flood case probably requires some heat to make fossils quickly enough to prevent normal rot/disintegration. Fossils are found from both causes.

Maybe there are more causes--scientist regularly cite lack of oxygen in water to account for why a bunch of sea creatures fossilized instead of being eaten or rotting away. But it requires 2 things--lack of oxygen and eventual covering by mud or silt. But that doesn't work too well for plants and dinosaurs--too much oxygen on land, unless they first get overwhelmed by mud (or lava) in some way.

Can you guys help me out here? I'm having trouble seeing how it works.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Verse 1 is the answer to your nonsense question. :duh:


Therefore, EVOLUTION!!!11 :banana:

:mock: Darwinists.

So if you understand the question and the issue, is your answer "yes" or "no". Don't be scared. One of us is about to look stupid.
 

TheDuke

New member
Thanks for your reply.

I am no expert on this but I believe Clovis culture started 6000 years ago, and ended with the flood. Clovis culture is nicely sandwiched between two extinction events.

The dating I don't want to get too much into, except to say pre-flood, radiation levels were lower, reducing C14, making 6000 years ago date to 12000 - which is when Clovis culture is believed to begin - after an ice age (when earth was "without form and void" but not utterly devoid of all life). And because there was a flood, the multitude of strata gives a further impression of greater age. Dating is notoriously iffy.

Most indigenous North Americans trace their DNA to Clovis people. With the human genographic project there is so much talk of a mitochondrial Eve through whom all living trace their DNA. This is leaning towards the Biblical story of Eve IMO.

I'm also not an expert on the Clovis culture, so I'll just reiterate that humans are much older than 6000 years and there was no global flood 4000 years ago.


Here's a place for you to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating


The concepts of mitochondrial eve and y-chromosomal adam share but the name with the biblical story :)
Feel free to google the info, you'll learn that these are not distinct individuals but actually are assigned representatives who are shifted closer to the present as various lineages die out.


And while one is looking at strata, its so interesting to see how completely different the fossils are in consecutive layers. No transition species, no missing links. Pure evidence of mass extinction and replenishing by God of a completely new and different ecosystem.

Believe me, to date, I find no cognitive dissonance in believing in an old earth replenished multiple times by a very busy God.

I consider you evolutionists to be the true men of faith :)

So, does that mean that you're unaware of the various transitional forms that have been found, or instead that you have the false expectation for the presence of an entire evolutionary chain at every single site?


Please, I beg you, don't restart this sad fantasy about evolution being a matter of faith. You accept 99% of science, why not 100%?



Once one accepts that God is a creator, its very easy to look at each creature in the fossil record as just another beautiful act of creation. Even the ugly, nasty ones :)

I understand your sentiment. This is precisely why theists find it so difficult to let go. It's up to you what you choose to believe in, as you've probably concluded by now, there are great variations within the religious community regarding the proper interpretation of scripture.

Bear in mind that what you do not see in the fossil record are all the microorganisms, especially the ones that cause egregious diseases.



Cheers!
 

iouae

Well-known member
Please, I beg you, don't restart this sad fantasy about evolution being a matter of faith. You accept 99% of science, why not 100%?

Cheers!

Thanks for your considered reply.

Evolutionists acknowledge the problem of bursts of change followed by periods of stasis called punctuated equilibrium. I simply see this as God drawing a curtain on one project, and beginning another.

Here is what one site wrote...

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion
 

DavisBJ

New member
OK. .. well we can do one field of science at a time but let's start with......
ARCHAEOLOGY / HISTORY (confirms accuracy)
Luke (Gospel of Luke) was perhaps the world's greatest historian. The research Luke did is reflected in the accuracy of his account. The Gospel of Luke is just one of many historically accurate Books in God's Word.

The Gospel of Luke besides numerous mentions of things with historical and archaeological significance also mentions;*
32 countries*
54 cities*
9 islands.*

Because of the numerous mention to countries and cities, Sir William Ramsay thought that this book would be the easiest one to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"*

Ramsey said*"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth"

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

Interesting how so many people say the Bible is filled with errors. Yet for many who are willing to study it with an open mind, such as Sir William Ramsay, Scripture is inerrant.*
.....................................................................

Archaeologist Clifford Wilson
"There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I well remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.

Professor Nelson Glueck, who I suppose would be recognized as one of the top five of the ‘greats’ in biblical archaeology, gave a marvellous lecture to 120 American students who were interacting with the Arabs. He said, ‘I have excavated for 30 years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective, I have never yet found the Bible to be in error’.

Professor G. Ernest Wright, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Harvard University, gave a lecture at that same dig. He made the point that (because of the researches associated with the Hittites and the findings of Professor George Mendenhall concerning what are called the Suzerainty Covenant Treaties between the Hittite kings and their vassals) it had become clear that the records of Moses, when dealing with covenants, must be dated back to the middle of the second millennium*BC. That’s about 1500*BC. Also, that those writings should be recognized as a unity. In other words, they go back to one man. That one man could only be Moses.

I went to Professor Wright later and said, ‘Sir, this is very different from what you’ve been putting out in your own writings.’ He looked at me and said, ‘Clifford, for 30 years I’ve been teaching students coming to Harvard to train for the Christian ministry; I’ve been telling them they could forget Moses in the Pentateuch, but at least in these significant areas of the covenant documents that are there in the Pentateuch, I’ve had to admit that I was wrong.’

They were two scholastic giants. One says, ‘I’ve excavated for 30 years and I’ve never found the Bible to be in error’—basically that’s what he was saying. The other says, ‘For 30 years I’ve been wrong.’ It’s rather sad, isn’t it, that a good man such as Professor Wright had been so swept along with the ridiculous documentary hypothesis* that he had taken a wrong stand for so long. Let me stress that Professor Wright was a man of the highest integrity."
Ping.

Very good. But I am not aware that the archaeology or geography spoken of in New Testament passages has been much of an issue in the debates between fundamentalists and scientists. I know I have not contested such. I suspect that much of the New Testament account is not a work of pure fiction, but rather a compilation (and probably corruption) of accounts that had their basis in real-work locations and people.

Do you claim, with equal conviction, that “God’s word” is equally supported by science in the more disputed areas – such as the age of the earth and the Theory of Evolution?
 

DavisBJ

New member
Dear DavisBJ,

Why haven't I received your response to my Creation vs Evolution post #13658, on Pg. 911 here. No atheist responded to it. Is it because it is too correct?? It's better to dodge it, eh? It is a bit long, I guess. Not really though. Well, if you don't want to respond, maybe Hedshaker or gcthomas will. Whatever happened to The Barbarian?? And noguru and Stuu?? What is going on with the missing people here. I do hope they were not permanently banned. I don't know how a moderator could possibly monitor this whole website. Ayyyy!! Rough stuff, to say the least!! Well, you take good care and post back when you get the chance.

Warmest Regards,

Michael
Dear Michael,

How many times would you try explaining the best way to prepare a scrumptious 4-course French dinner to your dog, before you realize the dog simply is never going to understand? Friends - yup, appreciate - yup, but also recognize the other's limitations. Want a chewy dog-bone?
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4509074&postcount=13658

Michael you seemed to have copied the above post from a creationist website:
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/creation-vs-evolution-is-there-evidence-for-creation/

You will find that most non-creationists are not interested in picking apart such creationist assertions that seem to lack any means of falsification. We need to know what you think rather than perhaps a professional creationist apologist. Such words are only really meant to encourage believers to keep believing, not to provide anything to examine, put to the test or verify.


Dear alwight,

You know, of course, that I posted a copy of a piece of rational text and included it here on this thread because others have posted similar things. I don't see why mine is not accepted. I think that the article is too hard for evolutionists to refute. That is why no one has responded to it. I type what I feel and I also post articles. I think they could help an evolutionist to change their beliefs or even strengthen some creationists beliefs. It's both. The article is full of proof. Most likely too true for any others to not believe or be able to dodge. That's what I took from it.

Good Wishes & Cheerio!!

Michael
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top