Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creation vs. Evolution

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sherman
    replied
    Locking and sending this to the Hall of Fame as TOL's most popular thread. This has become too long for some computers and devices to handle. Continue here--->http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?120382-Creation-vs-Evolution-II

    Leave a comment:


  • Caino
    replied
    Because the earth is 4+ billion years old and YEC claims the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. Genesis is a creation of men who didn't know any better.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichaelCadry
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    Crikey - posts lost AND archived! Whatever next?
    Dear gcthomas,

    I know. This all sucks because of someone mentioning that my thread was too long. So now I'm screwed. I hope they are happy. This is NOT a good idea. It sure is funny that most of us have NO trouble navigating this thread. Just because some said they had trouble because this was too long. I am pis*ed off about this and feel that I am getting screwed, messing up my original thread for the sake of one or two posters. Probably trying to use this Thread with their phone or something. This is bullsh*t. I'm sorry. I am just very angry about all of this. Will hopefully see you on my new Creation vs. Evolution II thread. There is also a bogus thread by patrick jane with almost the same title as my Creation vs. Evolution thread. You can tell mine because there is a period after the 'vs'. I am going to close now. If you want to move your posts to my new thread Part II, go for it.

    I would move all the posts that I could off of the original thread, but it is not a good idea because my Avatar still appears on each Post. People will just have to do their own. It's a shame, a real shame! Now the Urantia thread is the longest here. I hope everyone goes there and gets talked out of being a Christian. Especially the poor newbies!

    See Post No. 21438, Page 1430.

    God's Best For You And Everyone Else Here,

    Michael
    Last edited by MichaelCadry; October 20th, 2016, 06:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Crikey - posts lost AND archived! Whatever next?

    Leave a comment:


  • MichaelCadry
    replied
    Dear All,

    Do not post here anymore. The Thread is being put into Archive, per Sherman. Sherman said that some users felt my thread was too long. I don't agree, but have little choice. I have no trouble navigating it, so I think someone sabotaged me and my Thread. The new Thread to replace this one is called "Creation vs. Evolution II." You can tell it is mine by there is a period after the 'vs' in Creation vs. Evolution. I'm sorry about all of this. Do not post here anymore, or your posts will be lost and also archived and not answered. This is all not my fault.

    God's Best Blessings Upon You All!!

    Michael
    Last edited by MichaelCadry; October 20th, 2016, 05:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Can't recall rejecting any scientific principles.
    No?

    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I have rejected absurd atheist fantasy that declares that matter and life is spontaneously generated from nothing, as that has neither been observed once,
    And there you go, rejecting principles. Although 'spontaneous generation' has a specific historical meaning which no scientist would subscribe to now. Yet matter does, often and routinely, spontaneously form from what you seem to call nothing. Yet you reject that well verified principle. (Look up "pair production", for example)

    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    and as it has been scientifically tested by experiment and rejected as false for some time now.
    And there is NO test that has proved that life could not form from naturally occurring organic molecules. That is either your wishful thinking or an outright disingenuous lie. And it is a scientific principle that you reject.

    Leave a comment:


  • popsthebuilder
    replied
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    Nope...it does not say "24 hours". However God defines a day as a period of daylight, then a period of darkness. Gen. 1:4 "*God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

    Pops..... What are you trying to gain by adding deep time into scripture?
    Jesus, and many of the Bible authors refer to the writings as Moses as true history. Why do you reject it? Once you add deep time you need to start explaining away, and adding 'interpretation' rather than accepting what God plainly says.
    I do not reject it. And I don't know what you mean by deep time. If you think that the Torah or OT was perfect then why was there the need for the new testament?

    I do not refute Moses or any before or after Him. What I refute is the literal interpretation of things that are very obviously not meant to be taken literally.

    If it was all meant to be taken as literally then why did the Christ only teach in parables? I don't deny that GOD could have indeed created all existence as we know it in 6 literal days, I just can't justify it given the fact that the truths or GOD are direct and simple, and for one to believe in a literal 6*24 hour period of creation they must ignore the plain simple truthful science that shows the earth to be more than 6000 years old. Either that, or they must genuinely believe that the whole of science is absolutely corrupt as if it where a political branch. If you contend that both the written inspired word of GOD is true, and that science, for the most part, is factual, then one must too admit that either time itself moved along much slower nearer to creation or that the word day isn't exactly associated with what we know to be a standard 24 hour period. Given the probability that time most likely would have moved faster nearer to creation than slower, and that 6 aeons is interchangeable with 6 days according to others that are faithful to GOD, the go to, for me, is obvious. I've read some of your posts; the fact that most science is derived from factual data isn't wholly lost on you, so why do you consider the literal interpretation so significant? Is it because you know that you are to have faith in the Word of GOD? If so; are you aware that faith is a reference to your actions which shows what you actually believe and care about? What I'm saying is that, yes, we must take some things on faith. But we don't have to have faith in the 6 days of creation being a literal 6 days of 24 hours a piece, especially before the sun, moon, or earth were even formed.

    I think you may be so hung up on this because of some antievolution thing. But what is the point? As stated earlier; just because things change over time doesn't mean GOD didn't create those things, or that GOD doesn't wholly control those changes.

    Anyway,

    Peace

    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • 6days
    replied
    Originally posted by popsthebuilder View Post
    And nothing about 24 hours or days being the same duration, before time, for GOD, as they are today, for man, due to the speed of the revolutions of the earth.
    Nope...it does not say "24 hours". However God defines a day as a period of daylight, then a period of darkness. Gen. 1:4 "*God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

    Pops..... What are you trying to gain by adding deep time into scripture?
    Jesus, and many of the Bible authors refer to the writings as Moses as true history. Why do you reject it? Once you add deep time you need to start explaining away, and adding 'interpretation' rather than accepting what God plainly says.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Also, I see that once again our resident creationists are making all sorts of claims about "genetic information" and relative amounts of it, even though they can't really say what "genetic information" is, and last we checked in they admitted that they don't know how to measure it.

    Goes to show how these creationist arguments are nothing more than rehearsed talking points with no empirical basis at all.
    Apart from the fact that the concept has been defined clearly.

    Darwinists are only in this to make sure nonsense prevails.

    Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

    Leave a comment:


  • popsthebuilder
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Pops. Try this thought experiment.

    1. Start in a void.
    2. Place yourself in that void.
    3. Place a big globe of muddy rock in front of you in that void.
    4. Shine. Brightly. Yes, YOU.
    5. Spin the globe of mud at a regular velocity. Not too fast, not too slow.
    6. When you like the effect, after a day or two, place a blazing ball of gas to hold your position where you were before.

    That's hardly nonsensical now, is it?
    I really like to read your posts generally.

    Your thought experiment didn't help.
    I won't say why specifically because I won't put myself as GOD even hypothetically, and I wouldn't question GOD's reasons otherwise.

    But it really did not help.

    Peace with humility.

    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • popsthebuilder
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    It doesn't mention the sun in the definition of night and day there. It says "morning and evening." All you need from that is a source of light. I suppose you're wondering how there can be light without a sun. Go back a verse and read, God said, "Let there be light."

    Revelation 21:23 KJV
    (23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

    God can provide light before he creates suns and stars, can't he? Even the face of Moses provided light at one time.

    Exodus 34:29-30 KJV
    (29) And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
    (30) And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

    If you're asking where the light came from, it came from the source, that is, God.
    I wasn't asking that at all.

    Just don't know why everyone assumes a day, before time or the creation of the earth or sun, must by default, be the same amount of time for a being with multiple infinities within it's control, as it is now, after time has started and space has expanded and does expand.

    So do you think that GOD created or formed light with HIS Word, separated it from the void and just made all dark again to signify to Itself that the passing of a 24 hour time period had happened?

    I'm confused as to were I am loosing everyone, and even more confused as to why one must believe that those days before the earth must be considered 24 hour periods. How is this pertinent to salvation? How is staunch refutal of evolution pertinent to salvation? Where in the bible does it say to refute honest science? Other Abrahamic faiths understand this concept, but why are people here so bent on 24 hours. To me it is an attempt to confine GOD into human understanding. Not that I refute the scripture, but don't agree with the literal interpretation of day, in every case, especially the case of the creation account.

    Peace



    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • popsthebuilder
    replied
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    God defined what a day is...then described each day exactly the same. Perhaps the repitition was meant to convince the hard of believing.
    Genesis 1:4*God saw that the light was good,*and he separated the light from the darkness.*5*God calledthe light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”*And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
    And nothing about 24 hours or days being the same duration, before time, for GOD, as they are today, for man, due to the speed of the revolutions of the earth.

    Peace

    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosenritter
    replied
    Originally posted by popsthebuilder View Post
    So the first and second day are to be considered 24 hour periods prior to the formation of the sun moon or earth which determined the 24 hour cycle.

    This is nonsensical.

    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
    Pops. Try this thought experiment.

    1. Start in a void.
    2. Place yourself in that void.
    3. Place a big globe of muddy rock in front of you in that void.
    4. Shine. Brightly. Yes, YOU.
    5. Spin the globe of mud at a regular velocity. Not too fast, not too slow.
    6. When you like the effect, after a day or two, place a blazing ball of gas to hold your position where you were before.

    That's hardly nonsensical now, is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosenritter
    replied
    Originally posted by popsthebuilder View Post
    And when you read that you automatically think it is a twenty four hour period even before the earth sun or moon were even formed to reference such a cycle.

    Peace

    Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
    It doesn't mention the sun in the definition of night and day there. It says "morning and evening." All you need from that is a source of light. I suppose you're wondering how there can be light without a sun. Go back a verse and read, God said, "Let there be light."

    Revelation 21:23 KJV
    (23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

    God can provide light before he creates suns and stars, can't he? Even the face of Moses provided light at one time.

    Exodus 34:29-30 KJV
    (29) And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
    (30) And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

    If you're asking where the light came from, it came from the source, that is, God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosenritter
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    Since many of the scientific principles that you reject were developed by God-fearing Christians, that statement is demonstrably false, no matter how much you need it to be true.

    You seem to be rejecting as atheists the many Christians who do not accept your fundamental assertions of biblical literalism over the traditional allegorical ways of reading parts of the Bible. Who are you to say they are not Christians, but atheists?
    Can't recall rejecting any scientific principles. I have rejected absurd atheist fantasy that declares that matter and life is spontaneously generated from nothing, as that has neither been observed once, and as it has been scientifically tested by experiment and rejected as false for some time now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X