Hedshaker
New member
Not to the furtherance of science and discovery it isn't. Only the evidence and the method of processing the evidence is relevant.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Not to the furtherance of science and discovery it isn't. Only the evidence and the method of processing the evidence is relevant.
You are being narrow minded. When people explain their opinion they are being relevant, whether there is agreement or not. The more an opinion matches truth the more relevant it is. But agreement with any particular idea does not make that idea more relevant, even when true.
A person can be relevant. What a person says can be relevant. And whether or not a thing that is said is true, honest, and correct can help us to determine if it is relevant.
Science and discovery are only possible because of God. Man did not create God. God created man, and gave him the ability to learn and discover things in His creation. Much of this is done in science. Mankind obtains more knowledge about the observable universe or the natural world thereby.
You are talking about evidence and the processing of evidence. I would do well to listen more to what you have to say about this.
Do you understand that people process, analyze, think critically about evidence all the time? As for the scientific process or method we have philosophical underpinnings for science that help us to determine what we are to do. We have math which can be used in certain particular ways to show different things. But discovery, experiment, calibration, measurement, and calculation are only possible because of God. So we would do well to re-evaluate where we are coming from when evidence to a contrary position or philosophy comes to bear on the situation and circumstance with which we are enthralled.
It's what God gave us to solve our own problems. Creationists don't seem to realize that it's an insult to God to ignore these things as tools to understand.
Yep. And yet creationists, with few exceptions, never do it. As you saw in this thread, one creationist supposed polystrate trees were a problem for science, when he might have figured out why they aren't, with a few moments of reflection.
Hedshaker
New member
Mindless preaching is also irrelevant :singer:
The word of God in a gifted preacher reflects the glory of God.
I have no problem with science. I just don't agree with all the beliefs those in science have. I agree with much of science, not precluding the scientific method.
Hedshaker
New member
Religious platitude! :yawn:
I don't know what to say to that. I feel you are trying to insult me.
Hedshaker
New member
Do you understand that having received salvation I would wish it for you as well and even that if I do not speak of it I neglect my duty before God even to the point of not sharing being wishing ill-will toward you?I don't much care for being preached at either so we're even
Hedshaker
New member
Do you understand I don't believe a word of it? You might as well don a grass skirt, do a dance and throw monkey bones around for what difference it makes to me.
When I say I don't believe it I really, really mean it and my convictions are just as good as yours. Geddit?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
For me to have convictions about God is different than for any person to have convictions about anything.
Hedshaker
New member
You're talking in circles. I'm done.
Last edited:
God created me. Then after I sinned He forgave me and gave me eternal life in Jesus Christ. I have no other motivation in sharing the gospel with you in the love of God.
Be done with me if you wish. But never be done with God. Even if you thilnk I am talking in circles (which I don't entirely understand you saying that, except that I am still talking about God), God will never talk in circles with you.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
Barbarian fabricates what others say, to try make his own argument. This is called a strawman fallacy.
Barbarian said:
Which place are you being truthful... above where you say that I advocate a literal interpretation of all scripture, *or here where you say that I say much of the Bible is not literal?
Barbarian said:
The only ones who dont accept Genesis as a historical account are those who are willing to compromise on the gospel.
A Hebrew Scholar
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11*intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
A*Historian Professor
Dr Benno Zuiddam says “God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”
Our Creator
JESUS speaking "Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"
Barbarian said:
He certainly nailed some things didn't he? And, he hit the nail on the head with that quote.
God spoke the creation into existance..... He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib.*Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
Again you misrepresent.... another strawman fallacy.*
Both verses you mention are part of the historical account of creation.
Barbarian said:
If you believe God could create something less than perfect, you must have a different god than I. My God ...the God of the Bible is omnipotent and omniscient. He is unable to do anything contradictory to His character. So, yes...when God declared His creation "very good"...it was. It could not be less than perfect.*
Barbarian said:
GULO is slightly different in humans than in other animals so its possible it may have a different function than for vitamin C. Or, it may be it synthesizes VitaminC in utero only and then is switched off...since we were created as vegetarians. Or, it may be GULO truely is broken. *As with all the other psuedogenes evolutionists jumped to false conclusions on... this may be just one more gene serving regulatory functions.*
Barbarian said:
If you believe that.... then you believe we have a corrupted Bible...which explains why you wont accept what Gods Word plainly teaches. The genealogies are harmonious....no contradiction at all. **
Barbarian said:
As a Christian, *why not try and understand how scriptre is correct instead of trying to prove it wrong.*
We know from various verses including both OT & NT that curse / *death refers to both physical and spiritual death. The Hebrew Word used for death implies a dying process. Some say the word means "dying, you shall die".*
Also...we know physical death was part *of the curse from Gen.*3:19*"For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return."
That process of physical death did begin the day Adam sinned.*
The spiritual death...separation from God was immediate.*
Barbarian said:
Jesus failed?*
"I am the living one. I died, but look--I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave."
Rev. 1:18
*
Are you withdrawing that? Would you like me to show you, again? Yes, I know what you said here was different than what you said earlier.
Barbarian observes:
I'd be pleased to see your evidence that an allegory, if repeated, makes it a literal history. What have you got?
St. Augustine is considered one of the most astute theologians by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians alike. He didn't accept it as an historical account. And no one at the time called him out on it. So that's not a very persuasive assertion, is it?
Well, let's take a look what Genesis says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
He says what's there at the beginning, no male, no female. Jesus was speaking figuratively, about the beginning of humans.
Speaking of Luther... He said "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day.
Barbarian chuckles:
This is the same guy who wanted to tell God that the Earth couldn't move. So not very convincing, um?
There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Martin Luther, giving us his understanding of scripture.
Actually, the Earth goes around the Sun. It moves. Luther like to revise scripture to meet his expectations. He actually wanted to remove James, correctly arguing that it contradicted his new doctrine of sola fide. He wasn't the best theologian in the world, when it came to the Bible.
Barbarian suggests:
You might want to understand what the Bible says before you start making arguments.
Gen. 1:24And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
"Life ex nihilo" is completely contrary to God's word.
Indeed. But as you see, He used existing matter to make living things.
As you seem to understand, much of this is poetic and allegorical, but clearly, God used what he had created to make living things. "Life ex nihilo" is a false doctrine.
He quite plainly says that the earth brought forth living things, as He intended. Sounds literal to me. Of course, He didn't go into details; apparently, He wasn't writing a science textbook.
There are some Christians who think so, but most of us don't.
Barbarian observes:
He did not regard creation as perfect. That is a creationist addition to His word.
Did God create you? You're claiming that God can't create something less than He is. And of course, as you see, He didn't say that His creation was perfect. I think I'll go with God's opinion on this. "Very good", but not "perfect."
Barbarian observes that the GULO gene is broken in humans.
Nope. Nothing else. It's just broken. It happens from time to time. Somewhere back there, primates had a diet so rich in vitamin C, it didn't matter whether or not they could manufacture it. So a potentially lethal mutation could spread thoughout the population.
Nope. It's broken. You can't "switch off and on" broken genes. It won't work at all.
Well, let's take a look. Luke has 77 steps, or 11 times 7, indicating that what God has done is complete in Jesus, our Savior.
Matthew includes women, which is remarkable for Jewish geneologies of the time, until you realize that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary all had critical roles in the story of God's plan. So it's a different teaching point for us. These are not literal geneologies, or historical archives, but a figurative way of telling us Who Jesus is, and what He came for. As I alluded to above, there's a lot of gemetria here, which Jews of that time would have understood.
Nope. I just know something about it that you don't.
Barbarian observes:
If so, then Adam would have physically died that day. Unless you want to argue that God told him something that wasn't true. Which is it?
I'm pointing out that you're wrong, not scripture.
Not a good excuse. God says quite plainly that Adam will die that day. And he lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it wasn't a physical death.
Barbarian observes:
If He (Jesus) came to save us from physical death, He failed. We still die physically.
Only for those who think it's a physical death. We all will die. But He saved us from a spiritual death. A Christian should never be afraid of physical death.
You've just been telling us you don't know what evolution is. So how could you possibly "know it's wrong"?
I suppose we should admire the principled stand you are taking against the existence of gravity, er, I mean the facts of natural history.
You just did, in your statement above.
Well said. Now think carefully about that statement. Then tell me if you have a plantaris muscle running down the back of your lower leg to the underside of your foot. About 10% of humans don't have them. In other primates they are important. While you are at it, maybe you could come up with a better design for - and I don't mean better biochemistry but better design - the human back, the prostate gland, the appendix, and the arrangement of the nerve and blood supply to the retina. If you can't see how they could be engineered better then let me describe improvements to you. And those are just four of many examples.
Of course the reasons why the human back causes so many problems is easily explained by evolution through natural selection. On the other hand, creationists have to resort to fantasy concepts like sin to come up with actually no explanation at all.
Right. I thought that is what we both said. You have a science background (isn't engineering applied physics, chemistry or biology, and mathematics, depending on the field?). You accept some science but reject other science because Bronze Age goat herders and early Iron Age tent repairers know more about biology than we do today. The science that entirely supports natural selection as the explanation for the fact of evolution is no different in principle to the science that determines the tensile strength of mild steel or the optimal temperature for an industrial chemical manufacturing process. This is hypocrisy to cherry pick the facts that suit you.
Well we all have exposure to evolution because it is happening to all living species on the planet. But I think the only honorable thing for you to do is not even mention it, if you can't even be bothered to find out what it is.
Or maybe you would like me to tell you what you think about Jesus, even though I don't know what you actually think.
Sheesh, as they say.
Stuart
I know what is right that is how I know macro evolution is wrong.
I have discussed with others elsewhere the difference between gravity as law and gravity as theory, but I don't deny its existence. Evolution is not like gravity. Evolution is like fables as it is fiction.
How is disagreeing with something that is false because I know what is true "railing against it"?
I don't know what you mean by "the human back causes so many problems".
I am now in computers though I was considering electrical engineering years ago.
I actually don't know anything about what you are talking about. I know metals are referred to in the Bible. See here:
I have already said I believe micro evolution is possible, just not macro evolution.
Well I guess we can learn from each other. If you learn about Jesus and I learn about evolution you will be the better for it.
No Stuart,
Mammals is Method 1. It is written, "and out of the GROUND, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them..." Cain's wife, etc., from the ground just like Adam and Eve were formed, not by spontaneous appearance from nowhere.
This is where I got the reason that Adam has been created/formed more than once, which I could be persuaded to believe. 6days says not. I have to agree with 6days.. Our God is surely powerful enough to do all of these things in six literal days. Maybe there is a fourth dimension? God did specifically say He created the Earth and Heavens, and stars/planets/etc., animals, etc. in SIX DAYS. Then comes the Lord God forming. The creatures are made from the Ground/Dirt. The dirt and rocks/stones having the minerals and atoms in which He could make man, plus water, which some rocks/stones have within them, just like when Moses struck his cane against the rock and water came pouring out of it for the people that were with him/hundreds or thousands.
This is a 24-hour day? That is the question. So who can prove that a day lasted longer than 24 hours, billions of years ago when God created the Earth?? This is something we should not try to answer ourselves, for it is too formidable. Does this question merit such necessity that we know the answer to it so important as what is God made of? We settle for one question will not be answered (God made of). Do you understand? Let us wait, brothers and sisters, until Jesus returns and we can ask God. It is A Lot easier. Enough of the speculation.
Praise God And Jesus And The Holy Ghost!!!
Michael
Last edited:
Dear gcthomas,
When are YOU gonna post here?? You're welcome, of course. Miss you.
Warmest Regards,
Michael
When are YOU gonna post here?? You're welcome, of course. Miss you.
Warmest Regards,
Michael
- Status