Creation vs. Evolution

[Kdall]

One of the greatest pieces of evidence is the destruction of Jerusalem. It is mentioned all through Luke, and adequately in the others, but all of them are from accounts 40 years ahead of time. The details of the complete destruction of the place by Rome.

So much happened to the early church that nothing was written down for a couple years because writing down was not the normal method of preservation in that Aramaic-speaking culture. There are slight variations in the 3 called the synoptics (seen together), John took a more 'theological' approach and only becomes parallel in the last third.

the guy you want to talk to is Paul. He wanted the whole movement stopped. Yet he was completely taken hold of by God and by the message. He said he once knew everything about Christ in an ordinary sense, but now realized God was at work in Christ's unusual events. That puts them well into hard evidence history and beyond. He said at one post-resurrection appearance abot 500 saw Christ. Remember, this is a person who once was the leader in stamping out the movement, so he had every reason to ignore, doubt and bury such a statement.

I wouldn't call that hard evidence, but it is a very compelling firsthand account. Paul's sudden and dramatic conversion is one of those things that's difficult to explain away scientifically

 

[MichaelCadry]

Who is to question God you ask?On an issue like this, anyone with an ounce of decency is who. But more than that I question you and your subservient sucking up to your nasty invisible friend. It's quite pathetic. Even if your god did exist I would tell it where to get off. Like any imaginary entity, stop believing and it's gone in a puff of logic. Not that it has ever been established to exist in the first place.

But no, it's you I hold responsible for what you say, not your alter ego.

Nor do you have the slightest clue what's going on behind the scenes. You think all you have to do is preach it and we all should just believe what you say without question? Don't be naive. The existence of your God has never been established. It's a faith belief, nothing more.

Extreme weather conditions occur naturally all the time. That you would take that as confirmation before embarking on an infant blood lust says it all really. And it's quite, quite horrible.

Being celibate is not the same as changing your sexual orientation Michael. You are what you are regardless and no amount of abstinence will change that. But, to be honest Michael, you're not known for looking reality squarely in the face. You seem to think reality is what you want it to be. It isn't. Nor is ones sexuality a sin. It simply is what it is, but your opinion just confirms what Christopher Hitchens had to say about it:

Born sick and commanded to be well

Dear Hedshaker,

Within the last three posts, you've screwed up terribly. I'm not going to go through and explain it all to you because it will be useless and time-consuming. I know where you got your "born sick and commanded to be well, blurb from. Of course, it's Hozier's Take Me To Church song. Nothing new about that.

I am not subservient to God. I am His child and I serve/work for Him as My Father. If you faced God, you would be utterly speechless. Many others have had experiences from God that they can swear by, so don't act like it doesn't exist. I am one of those persons also and I can swear that God is Real, Tangible, and Loving, Understanding, Kindhearted, Awesome, And A Diety!! Also, Hedshaker, you do not know under which circumstances a tornado would mean what from God. You don't know how it works. I do.

I also have no desire of sex, I am abstinent and quite happy being a eunuch for Jesus. But I do understand how you could not understand it because you haven't had to do it, like I have. I did it as a gift to God. Just like I did with quitting cigs. Same with drinking alcohol and gluttony. I am 30 lbs. overweight. I am used to being 135 or 140lbs. But I am 170lbs. It's a hard, hopeless fight and I don't really know if I can do it. I was 183, so I did lose 13 lbs. But I can't seem to get past that. You know, when you quit smoking, you eat more. Eeekkk!!

I do care very much that you care about me. I care a lot about you also and I have from early on. You are just so likable and you like music, which I also like very much. I do not think that someone else could quit having sex, gay or straight, or quit smoking cigs, or quit alcohol, or food, or drugs, etc. The only reason I can is because of the circumstances in my life that you don't know about. You'll find out before the year is out what is going on with me. See Rev. 11:3KJV & Rev. 14:4KJV if you are interested in me. That's what is going on with me in my life.

Will close for now. Cheerio Mate!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :cheers: atrol: :cloud9:

 

[IMJerusha]

I wasn’t aware that my MO was particularly obscure. To be open about it, my MO in this case is to actually read the book you claim is sacred, and if I encounter something that gives me pause, then I think about it, and sometimes bring it here to TOL for consideration. I know in the case of God commanding that infants be slaughtered, after thinking about it I realized that is something that I would not do. I was interested in how the professing Christians would respond if they were asked to kill infants, and generally the response has been hostility towards me for even broaching the question (Except in your case, you answered civilly, thank you).

I would have no difficulty discussing this with you at length, DavisBJ, just not in Michael's thread so as not to derail. Open a thread appropriately and we'll give it a shot. You should be able to ask questions of believers without receiving hostility. How in the world can we ever hope to witness to the Faith if we meet non-believers with hostility?

Since I feel certain your God is just a construct in your own mind, I am not reticent about examining the actions ascribed to that imaginary being.

I'm very glad to hear that you are reading Scripture but if you aren't open to the answers Scripture provides you with, are you truly examining or simply seeking a reason to continue in disbelief? I believe that is why Michael is questioning your MO. For instance, if one is reading from Genesis on forward, by the time one gets to the account you are questioning, Scripture has already provided more than enough understanding of the reason behind God's command.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear IMJerusha,

Hey lovely lady!! I'm sorry about the tension here. People are like an angrymob here. So good to have you visit me today. I love it every time you visit. You've got class AND wisdom. Please visit again soon.

Much Love For You, In Christ,

Michael

 

[noguru]

I would have no difficulty discussing this with you at length, DavisBJ, just not in Michael's thread so as not to derail. Open a thread appropriately and we'll give it a shot. You should be able to ask questions of believers without receiving hostility. How in the world can we ever hope to witness to the Faith if we meet non-believers with hostility?



I'm very glad to hear that you are reading Scripture but if you aren't open to the answers Scripture provides you with, are you truly examining or simply seeking a reason to continue in disbelief? I believe that is why Michael is questioning your MO. For instance, if one is reading from Genesis on forward, by the time one gets to the account you are questioning, Scripture has already provided enough understanding of the reason behind God's command.

Michael has used this thread to broadcast his theological beliefs to others, even though it seems to have been started under the facade of being a rigorous and sound analysis of the empirical evidence for biodiversity.

He generally gets defensive with many who disagrees with him when they are only stating their own view, even if they are theists as well. He gets especially defensive when atheists on this thread explain there own perspective which is inherently a negation of Michael's claims to know God. Do you think a thread started by someone should only contain posts that agree with that individual in order for it to "not be derailed"?

 

[IMJerusha]

Dear IMJerusha,

Hey lovely lady!! I'm sorry about the tension here. People are like an angrymob here. So good to have you visit me today. I love it every time you visit. You've got class AND wisdom. Please visit again soon.

Much Love For You, In Christ,

Michael

Well, the subject matter can lend to all sorts of emotional responses, can't it? You don't have to apologize to me, Michael.
Love in Yeshua!

 

[MichaelCadry]

I wasn’t aware that my MO was particularly obscure. To be open about it, my MO in this case is to actually read the book you claim is sacred, and if I encounter something that gives me pause, then I think about it, and sometimes bring it here to TOL for consideration. I know in the case of God commanding that infants be slaughtered, after thinking about it I realized that is something that I would not do. I was interested in how the professing Christians would respond if they were asked to kill infants, and generally the response has been hostility towards me for even broaching the question (Except in your case, you answered civilly, thank you).

Do you have issues with my MO?

Dear BJ,

Yes, you like to add loaded questions with ulterior motives, and you can't rest until you get an answer you are hoping for so you can pounce on someone. That is your MO.

Correct. Since I feel certain your God is just a construct in your own mind, I am not reticent about examining the actions ascribed to that imaginary being.

You do realize, that when you declare “I don't question my God” then you are expressing the very same sentiment that we read about several times each year that is offered by a mother who has killed her kids, or parents who starved their offspring, or even for the 911 attack on the World Trade Centers. In each case, had those people been rational, and dared to “question their God” then many families and many lives might have been spared the horror that the deluded murderers mentally convinced themselves was commanded of God. By your own admission, the only reason you have not committed mass murder is because you don’t feel you have been told to by God – yet.

BJ, those are people who are nuts. They are few and far between, and of course, you question God, but not at length. If He tells you to do something, you can say, are you certain, Lord? And if He says yes, then you do it. I've been in that situation a number of times. You do realize that when I lived in Manhattan, NYC, I worked at ABC-TV there in the Comptroller's Accounting Dept. I had sent a note to a reporter at the Daily News Building that God had visited me and told me to tell others certain things. Well, he wrote me back and said he didn't see any story in what I'd sent him. Well, I was upset, but God said to me, write him back and tell him that I (God) will send seven inches of snow upon his Daily News Bldg. within 48 hours of him receiving my letter. Well, the morning he received my letter, the snow began to fall, and that evening, I came home from work and the minute I walked in the door, my girlfriend said this reporter had been calling me over and over and wants me to call him back. Well, I went to the phone to call him back and the phone rang and it was him, and he said don't pray for any other signs for him, and what did I want? I said I wanted a 3-hour interview and he said okay. He was terrified by the 7 inches of snow. Now, Davis, that is what you would call a sign, whether it is that, or whether it is a tornado somewhere, etc. Only God can cause weather-related signs. The devil cannot. Anyway, the reporter did not help me much. He said it was up to his boss who owned the newspaper. So I left it at that. But I do have a copy of my letter to him and also a copy of the newspaper article saying the seven inches fell. Those are part of my "Proof Pages."

For all the things you don't know, that is the reason you can't believe me yet.

God Change Your Heart And Mind,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :bang: :cheers: atrol:

 

[IMJerusha]

Do you think a thread started by someone should only contain posts that agree with that individual in order for it to "not be derailed"?

I don't believe I implied that, did I? I believe I implied keeping the discussion within the OP, at least for my part in answer to and continued discussion with DavisBJ.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well, the subject matter can lend to all sorts of emotional responses, can't it? You don't have to apologize to me, Michael.
Love in Yeshua!

Dearest IMJerusha,

You are too special!! Thanks so much for coming to my thread, especially at this hour. I wish you would come here more often. You would probably find it very interesting. Now you know about my seven inches of snow in Manhattan. That reporter was terrified!! God struck the fear of Him into him. But it did the trick. You know, when it started snowing that morning, I was thinking, oh, not snow. And then an angel whispered into my ear saying this was the snow that God promised you about. I was thrilled and waited the whole day until the snow stopped at around 4pm that day. Hey, you take good care of yourself and come visit more often or you can see what happens here all of the time.

May God Increase Your Countenance Threefold,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't believe I implied that, did I? I believe I implied keeping the discussion within the OP, at least for my part in answer to and continued discussion with DavisBJ.

Dear IMJerusha,

I'm sorry. DavisBJ is an agitated atheist who isn't too fond of my answers. Noguru is a "Christian" who is an evolutionist, and he does not believe in the way that God created the Universe and world in six days. You have to know them better and you'd understand the reason they feel the way they do.

Tons Of Love, IMJerusha,

Michael

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

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well, thanks a lot guys! A special woman comes to visit and you treat her poorly. I wish you all had an ounce of class. Whatever!

God Grow You A New One,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

It seems to me that you are being rather selective in which ancient scripture is deemed factual, why don't you believe Mohammed or the Mahabharata?
Are the four gospels really an historical narrative, or are they dramatic reconstructions aimed at a particular audience of a later time?
Is there any hard evidence?
Did former probably illiterate fishermen really bother to take accurate dictation on the go and were even able to write it all down, or did a later evangelist sit down at a desk and reconstruct an earlier story with perhaps a few natural and supernatural embellishments to make it rather more compelling?
As I see it the four anonymous evangelist gospel authors are not believed by academia to have been contemporary or eye witnesses at all and were probably written as dramatic accounts sequentially, well after the events described, while they often conflict.
So why should I believe that they are factually accurate, particularly if miraculous deeds are also to be believed rather than be considered as embellishments?

People who want to believe them will believe what they will, but in fact there is only one piece of hard evidence that any character from the NT actually existed which is something called the "Pilate Stone".
Historical accuracy can only rationally be concluded by converging evidence not the hearsay written down years after the events.
If as I suspect, the four gospels at least were only ever meant to be dramatized exciting accounts then how can you know otherwise?

Dear alwight,

I have to tell you that there are four gospels, and they say the same things in each one, according to different disciple's interaction with Christ. Why do you ask for so much to believe when you wouldn't do the same for evolution? You don't want to believe, is what seems to be the case. I regret that. You're too special for that. It doesn't matter who wrote the four gospels. They were dictated by the disciples to those who wrote them on paper. What more evidence would ever be enough for you evolutionists?

Warmest Regards,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: atrol: :bang: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

It seems to me that you are being rather selective in which ancient scripture is deemed factual, why don't you believe Mohammed or the Mahabharata?
Are the four gospels really an historical narrative, or are they dramatic reconstructions aimed at a particular audience of a later time?
Is there any hard evidence?
Did former probably illiterate fishermen really bother to take accurate dictation on the go and were even able to write it all down, or did a later evangelist sit down at a desk and reconstruct an earlier story with perhaps a few natural and supernatural embellishments to make it rather more compelling?
As I see it the four anonymous evangelist gospel authors are not believed by academia to have been contemporary or eye witnesses at all and were probably written as dramatic accounts sequentially, well after the events described, while they often conflict.
So why should I believe that they are factually accurate, particularly if miraculous deeds are also to be believed rather than be considered as embellishments?

People who want to believe them will believe what they will, but in fact there is only one piece of hard evidence that any character from the NT actually existed which is something called the "Pilate Stone".
Historical accuracy can only rationally be concluded by converging evidence not the hearsay written down years after the events.
If as I suspect, the four gospels at least were only ever meant to be dramatized exciting accounts then how can you know otherwise?

Dear Alwight,

You don't want to believe, let's face it. Four similar gospels. A book who Jesus dictated to John of Patmos, with secrets galore about our future. What do you want? No matter what happens, you would not believe, because you want God to slap your face and say, "Snap out of it." What would do the trick for you, alwight? What? True stories from 2,000 plus years ago. Word of mouth you won't believe. But if it is about evolution, you drop everything to pronounce it to others. I'm only trying to see what it would take for you to believe in a Creationist's story or account of things.

Let Me Know, Bro!

Michael

:bang: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cheers: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

One of the greatest pieces of evidence is the destruction of Jerusalem. It is mentioned all through Luke, and adequately in the others, but all of them are from accounts 40 years ahead of time. The details of the complete destruction of the place by Rome.

So much happened to the early church that nothing was written down for a couple years because writing down was not the normal method of preservation in that Aramaic-speaking culture. There are slight variations in the 3 called the synoptics (seen together), John took a more 'theological' approach and only becomes parallel in the last third.

the guy you want to talk to is Paul. He wanted the whole movement stopped. Yet he was completely taken hold of by God and by the message. He said he once knew everything about Christ in an ordinary sense, but now realized God was at work in Christ's unusual events. That puts them well into hard evidence history and beyond. He said at one post-resurrection appearance abot 500 saw Christ. Remember, this is a person who once was the leader in stamping out the movement, so he had every reason to ignore, doubt and bury such a statement.

Dear Interplanner,

Makes every bit of sense to me. Jesus took Paul out of many others and made an apostle of him in order to reach the Gentiles. Big job. It is a wonder that he could go to any house today and be accepted. I guess there are still a lot of Christians today, so hopefully he would be welcomed. It is so hard to believe that so many don't want to hear about it, but that is Satan's fault. Too often, he sent false prophets to mankind, and they were all lied to and misled. No one now could say that God is with them, even with miracles to help others believe. I am living proof of it. People are just wary and tired of hearing others push their religion. These are the times where the fruit is ripe indeed and ready to be picked.

God Bless Your Heart And Soul For Coming Here!!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

I have to tell you that there are four gospels, and they say the same things in each one, according to different disciple's interaction with Christ. Why do you ask for so much to believe when you wouldn't do the same for evolution? You don't want to believe, is what seems to be the case. I regret that. You're too special for that. It doesn't matter who wrote the four gospels. They were dictated by the disciples to those who wrote them on paper. What more evidence would ever be enough for you evolutionists?

Warmest Regards,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: atrol: :bang: :cloud9:

Everything you say here Michael is a belief that is simply not supported by evidence. You want to believe it so you do and not because any evidence is leading you. Evolution otoh is the best natural explanation around for facts and evidence which I believe makes totally rational sense, not because I want to believe it.
Your assumptions of Jesus being involved in the writing of the four gospels is simply that, an assumption, nothing else.
Without evidence there is nothing to choose between any such religious beliefs, never mind any miraculous deeds which seems to be a requirement for any religious belief, not just Christianity.

 

[Interplanner]

This material should have been in the first post about 2 Peter 3. I'll copy it to the other discussions of creation.

2 Peter 3's vocabulary on creation and time.

v5a The heavens existed. 'ekpalai' To have existed for a long time. The NEB is not reliable here when it puts heavens and earth together as the subject. The NIV is correct.

5b. The earth was formed out of water and through water by God's word. 'sunestosa' to be given structure, sense, consistency.

Like Gen 1, there is a universe in existence while the earth was not the form we now have. There is nothing about 'sunestosa' that indicates time like 'ekpalai' does. That comes next.

v6 that (ancient) world was destroyed by water. Notice again that the habitable part is the focus. It does not mean the entire planet was destroyed, just as 'sunestosa' does not mean it came into existence from nothing. Both mean the habitable zone was given livable structure or it was taken away.

Peter is saying there was a relatively short amount of time between creation and the flood because both are grouped as being part of 'that (old) world.'

By referring only to the habitable zone, he is also validating that there was a different atmosphere. That's the world that was formed then destroyed. We are now in a world with a different atmosphere. This is yet another reason why 'sunestosa' is not from nothing at all but rather the forming of material into a certain structure. It is from no structure, but it is not from no materials.

The intention of Peter was to show that the judgement of the world did not necessarily have to happen right after the Gospel events, nor even right after the destruction of Jerusalem. That it could still be delayed a long time. For the same reason, there is no hurry when dating the 6 days of creation. The heavens existed long before. (If you think that the coming of v4 is the Gospel event, that's a separate discussion).

We know that 'formless and void' is the result of an act of judgement from Jer 4:23. So Peter is saying here that God was patient about what was going on before his own 6 days of creative work, but finally destroyed--in displeasure-- what was there and made a world habitable for mankind who would have an imprint of God like no other.

Both the gospel writers and Paul refer to the judgement of Israel as settled (the house is left desolate; the wrath of God has come upon them completely) many years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter uses the examples of the primitive earth and the flood to show that the judgement will certainly come no matter how much it is doubted.

 

[DavisBJ]

It matches almost all world cosmologies about the stage between the defeat of a sinister creature by the creator and the next stage: creating this world as we know it out of the aftermath of that.

I've always heard that evolution left to itself would result in a world dominated by T-Rex. As we know, that is not the domesticated world we now have. What happened?

These two points speak to each other, don't they?

Two things:

1 – It would help if you would use the quote function and address your points to a specific person, or at least make it clear who you are talking to (or talking about). Your posts often look like random comments that have nothing to do with the current discussions in the thread.

2 – Your comment that “evolution left to itself would result in a world dominated by T-Rex” is silly nonsense. Evolution was left to itself, and T-Rex was no more than a ferocious looking animal long ago that was a stage in the evolution of a species of dinosaurs. Being big and bad doesn’t mean you are going to last forever.

 

[DavisBJ]

It matches almost all world cosmologies about the stage between the defeat of a sinister creature by the creator and the next stage: creating this world as we know it out of the aftermath of that.

It sounds as though you have a fascination with ancient creation myths. Interesting though they may be, cosmology as understood by science has nothing to do with ancient sinister creatures that fought before the world existed. Don’t pollute science with silly fables.

 

[IMJerusha]

Everything you say here Michael is a belief that is simply not supported by evidence. You want to believe it so you do and not because any evidence is leading you. Evolution otoh is the best natural explanation around for facts and evidence which I believe makes totally rational sense, not because I want to believe it.
Your assumptions of Jesus being involved in the writing of the four gospels is simply that, an assumption, nothing else.
Without evidence there is nothing to choose between any such religious beliefs, never mind any miraculous deeds which seems to be a requirement for any religious belief, not just Christianity.

If science could explain evolution, would it not have already? Just a thought.
You are correct about one thing and that is that faith is a choice.

 

[DavisBJ]

I would have no difficulty discussing this with you at length, DavisBJ, just not in Michael's thread so as not to derail.

You can’t derail a huge thread that has very few posts dealing with what the thread title implies. Cadry (the thread originator) simply disses any aspect of evolution or the science behind it. As to creation (the other subject in the tread title), Cadry himself has had a huge revision in his own views on that subject since starting the thread. The thread has wandered into and out of (and into again) a number of subjects, so just go for it.

I'm very glad to hear that you are reading Scripture but if you aren't open to the answers Scripture provides you with, are you truly examining or simply seeking a reason to continue in disbelief?

I have never said I wasn’t open to answers. My lack of belief stems partly from the paucity of answers to difficult issues in the Bible.

…if one is reading from Genesis on forward, by the time one gets to the account you are questioning, Scripture has already provided more than enough understanding of the reason behind God's command.

Just so we don’t needlessly spin our wheels here, I have read, more than once, the Bible from page one to page last. And I did not see anything that made it OK to order the slaughter of children. I am certainly open to hearing what you see in the Bible that you feel makes that acceptable.