Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Let's say anything before 10,000 years ago.
I don't believe mankind is that old.
That still doesn't really address the question. You claimed that believing in your god is not just some belief. I'm asking if you apply that to all beliefs in gods, or just your own.

Hindus for example believe in many gods. Are their beliefs in gods not just some belief?
Believing in God is different than believing God. My reason for saying this is found in the book of James in the Bible.

There is only one God, so belief in Him is a must for a person to be saved from false gods and false beliefs.
 

alwight

New member
The word of God, and that the prophets wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is contained in the Bible.
I don't believe that your assertion is true, demonstrate how you can know this.

That the Bible is self-verifying is important. It's just not the same as what you were originally implying.
So if I assert that you owe me $1000 you will happily pay up if I self-verify it with another assertion?


This verse may not even be talking only about scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 NASB - for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
An anonymous ancient Greek person using the name Peter had an opinion, so what?
Old Moore's Almanack has been making predictions for hundreds of years with varying success, some people believe horoscopes or some can predict rain from seaweed or read tea leaves, Tarot cards, bones....:rolleyes:

Have you seen the following verses?

2 Timothy 3:16 NASB - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Timothy 3:17 NASB - so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment....

Presumably Paul could drop into infallible God mode and back out to be a fallible human again at will. ;)
 

Jose Fly

New member
I don't believe mankind is that old.

Of course you don't.

Believing in God is different than believing God. My reason for saying this is found in the book of James in the Bible.

There is only one God, so belief in Him is a must for a person to be saved from false gods and false beliefs.

Yeah great....typical fundie-bot...can only read from the script.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
I don't believe that your assertion is true, demonstrate how you can know this.
The verses I posted below in the post you just responded to.
So if I assert that you owe me $1000 you will happily pay up if I self-verify it with another assertion?
We are talking about the God of the universe, whom none of us have anything negative to say because He is holy, His character is perfect in every way. We know the truth by Him. So it must be our ideas and open rebellion that are wrong, not His view of it.
An anonymous ancient Greek person using the name Peter had an opinion, so what?
The Apostle Peter actually. Peter was one of the twelve. He was a disciple of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment....
Paul may not have known his writings would become scripture. But he is considered trustworthy.
 

alwight

New member
The verses I posted below in the post you just responded to.
More verses don't verify verses.

We are talking about the God of the universe, whom none of us have anything negative to say because He is holy, His character is perfect in every way. We know the truth by Him. So it must be our ideas and open rebellion that are wrong, not His view of it.
Why can't infallible humans be wrong about God's existence?

The Apostle Peter actually. Peter was one of the twelve. He was a disciple of Jesus.
Do you also believe that the four gospels were also written by contemporaries and disciples of Jesus?

Paul may not have known his writings would become scripture. But he is considered trustworthy.
Why is he deemed trustworthy and even infallible?
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
More verses don't verify verses.
This was your original point before I responded twice about the verse from the book of Hebrews?
Why can't infallible humans be wrong about God's existence?
Many are. But expressing something that is false is different from having been given the ability to ascertain God's existence, separate from yourself, from within your own God-given existence.
Do you also believe that the four gospels were also written by contemporaries and disciples of Jesus?
Before the end of the first century even.
Why is he deemed trustworthy and even infallible?
He identifies his words where he doesn't say he "has the Spirit" on that matter as from one who is trustworthy, himself. Meaning, the apostles communicated to us the word of God. But when Paul spoke from himself without clear direction from the Spirit of God he spoke with wisdom and said it was only from himself, one who is trustworthy.
 

alwight

New member
This was your original point before I responded twice about the verse from the book of Hebrews?
Yes but I'm still not buying that the Bible verifies the Bible, call me a sceptic.;)

Many are. But expressing something that is false is different from having been given the ability to ascertain God's existence, separate from yourself, from within your own God-given existence.
All we actually do know is perhaps that we exist, presupposing a specific God is not something for me at least.
All humans are imo fallible, even AiG says so, unless said human happens to be in the process of writing an officially approved scripture apparently, under the direct mind-control of God, right?
Many people today also seem to think they are conduits for God I notice. How exactly it is determined and by whom which scriptures actually qualify for this exalted infallible status is not something that I at least have managed to fathomed out so far.:idunno:

Before the end of the first century even.
Theology Scholars seem to agree that along with Paul they were all in fact later literate Greeks and probably not illiterate Aramaic contemporaries of Jesus, do you refute that?

He identifies his words where he doesn't say he "has the Spirit" on that matter as from one who is trustworthy, himself. Meaning, the apostles communicated to us the word of God. But when Paul spoke from himself without clear direction from the Spirit of God he spoke with wisdom and said it was only from himself, one who is trustworthy.
You are entitled to hold that opinion of him but I'm not going to do the same simply from his own words, assertions and perhaps delusion without at least some corroborating evidence from a different source.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Yes but I'm still not buying that the Bible verifies the Bible, call me a sceptic.;)
It does. But that is not the only reason to believe what we have from God in the Bible. Internal tests of scripture or even self-verification of the Bible in the Bible are valid. But they are not the only tests. The other possible tests, whether needed or not, would be called external.
All we actually do know is perhaps that we exist, presupposing a specific God is not something for me at least.
All humans are imo fallible, even AiG says so, unless said human happens to be in the process of writing an officially approved scripture apparently, under the direct mind-control of God, right?
It wouldn't mean mean mind-control of God. God doesn't engage in mind-control. But this is not an encouragement to write your own scripture. :)
Many people today also seem to think they are conduits for God I notice. How exactly it is determined and by whom which scriptures actually qualify for this exalted infallible status is not something that I at least have managed to fathomed out so far.:idunno:
If a person tells you they are infallible you can know they are wrong. If a person claims to speak for God, you can look in the Bible to see if what they have said is true. The Bible is the test in that case.
Theology Scholars seem to agree that along with Paul they were all in fact later literate Greeks and probably not illiterate Aramaic contemporaries of Jesus, do you refute that?
What did you just say and what are you asking? There is debate about the language being used in that day.
You are entitled to hold that opinion of him but I'm not going to do the same simply from his own words, assertions and perhaps delusion without at least some corroborating evidence from a different source.
If you begin with Matthew and the Gospel accounts, you will do well. Some of the things Paul has said are difficult to hear (as Peter said in his writings).
 

alwight

New member
What did you just say and what are you asking? There is debate about the language being used in that day.
It seems to me that you would simply prefer to believe that the four Gospel writers and the writer of Peter in the NT were the same people who were disciples of Jesus, correct?
The Bible's content is what you might be restricting your belief to perhaps rather than its sources?

What I'm saying is that the general scholastic opinion (including theologians') imo is that the actual authors are probably later evangelists, anonymous and probably Greeks writing for the specific audiences of their day. You'd have to think outside of the Bible and I suspect that isn't exactly what you like doing.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
It seems to me that you would simply prefer to believe that the four Gospel writers and the writer of Peter in the NT were the same people who were disciples of Jesus, correct?
The Bible's content is what you might be restricting your belief to perhaps rather than its sources?

What I'm saying is that the general scholastic opinion (including theologians') imo is that the actual authors are probably later evangelists, anonymous and probably Greeks writing for the specific audiences of their day. You'd have to think outside of the Bible and I suspect that isn't exactly what you like doing.
Well I know the word anonymous you are using, but in a different context.

Here is what the Bible I am reading (New American Standard Bible) says:

Matthew
Author and Date of Writing
All four of the canonical Gospels are anonymous, but the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew was the author of this Gospel. He was a tax collector also known as Levi. The Gospel was most likely written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Mark
Author and Date of Writing
Mark was the son of Mary (Acts 12:12) and the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Paul speaks of him as his companion in Rome and pays high tribute to his service. It is believed that Mark is the first of the Gospels, and therefore it can be dated about A.D. 55.

Luke
Author and Date of Writing
The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these books indicate that both were written by the same person. Luke was probably a Gentile by birth, well educated in Greek culture, a physician by profession and a companion of Paul at various times. The book was probably written between A.D. 59 and 63.

John
Author and Date of Writing
The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." John knew Jewish life well and referred often to Jewish customs. John's account has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness. The date of writing was probably about A.D. 85 or a little later.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
Some creationists were convinced they were a form of ape. Science right, creationists wrong.

Science is always 'right'.

No need to get petulant about it. Fact is, the creationists have wildly differing opinions about Neandertals and other early hominins. And they are most often wrong.

Gods Word is always right.

Which is why I go with His word, instead of the modern doctrines of creationism.

IF a few creationists thought Neandertal bones were from an ape....its because Gods Word eliminates any possibility of sub humans.

Nothing in God's word eliminates any possibility of other species of human. That is a modern alteration of His word.

But at least they did not think a Neandertal tooth was evidence of extinct pigs.

Neither did scientists. You got that one garbled, too.

It was evolutionists trying to sell their belief system as science who said Neandertals were dim witted.

Show me a cite from the literature. I've heard creationists claim they were apes, but I never heard a primatologist or a physical anthropologist say so.

Let's see what you've got.

Why not assume Neandertals were more intelligent?? Simple....that would be contradictory to evolutionism that believes intelligence evolved.

You've got that backwards, too. Evolutionary theory predicted a humanlike body before a humanlike brain. Which is why Piltdown was such an embarrassment to science, until evolutionists showed that it was a fraud.

And of course, the predicted hominins, with apelike skulls and humanlike bodies were eventually found.

Science has shown many of us are ancestors of Neandertals and helps confirm the Biblical account. All humanity is one blood.

Barbarian observes:
This was demonstrated by an "evolutionist", Dr. Francis Collins, who is a world-class scientist and an evangelical Christian who accepts the fact of evolution.

On the other hand, the last world class biologist who was a creationist, denied that Africans were related at all to other humans, considering them to be a separate creation. And into the 90s, creationists like Henry Morris continued to blather about the supposed genetic inferiority of black people.

Delicious irony that evolutionists keep finding evidence that confirms the truth of scripture.... often admitting surprise. (Jefferson has a thread with examples of science surprising evolutionists...with the science showing Biblical creationists were correct)

Funny thing, everytime someone examines those claims, they fall apart. Why do you suppose that happens?

I always like to recall that Neandertal bones were discovered in a valley named after a young German, Joachim Neander who wrote 60 Christian hymns including one that" is generally regarded as one of the greatest hymns of praise of the Christian church"....Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation (German: 'Lobe den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren')

Actually, they were named because they were found in the valley of the Neander river (hence "Neander tal" meaning "Neander river valley")

The species is named after Neandertal ("Neander Valley"), the location in Germany where it was first discovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Makes a good story your way, though.
 

alwight

New member
Well I know the word anonymous you are using, but in a different context.

Here is what the Bible I am reading (New American Standard Bible) says:
The underlying point here U is that that to rationally consider Creation v Evolution it really must involve empirical reality, I don't see how someone who simply accepts an understanding of the Bible as supported by the Bible and nothing else can hope to offer any kind of rebuttal to such scientific conclusions.
YECs, bless 'em, are equally shackled to a literal Genesis, but they know that they can't refute scientific conclusions with Bible verses. :plain:
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
The underlying point here U is that that to rationally consider Creation v Evolution it really must involve empirical reality, I don't see how someone who simply accepts an understanding of the Bible as supported by the Bible and nothing else can hope to offer any kind of rebuttal to such scientific conclusions.
YECs, bless 'em, are equally shackled to a literal Genesis, but they know that they can't refute scientific conclusions with Bible verses. :plain:
The Bible does contain material that can be deemed scientific or at least if science is good for us we wouldn't want to say the Bible is unscientific.

Really it comes down to that the Bible accounts of creation are reliable and accurate. The Bible says God created.

But with or without the Bible we have that God created.

And with science we have the study of the natural world, God's creation.

So we must say that in looking at creation vs. evolution a person Bible or not science or not must acknowledge that God has created; that this is His creation. This is to be in step with God, to admit that you and everything around you has been created by God.

If we are talking about science and you see creation vs. evolution, why would you think that if evolution then no creation or if creation or evolution then no creation?
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
I think Saul was a bit of a street fighter and he could have taken Simon Peter out. But it doesn't say how many rounds it went.

The language is strong enough to indicate that feelings must have been bitter as hell.

Stuart
You can find Peter before Acts 15 relating or culminating in a sense, at least in terms of content that relates to the council, in Acts 15.
 

alwight

New member
The Bible does contain material that can be deemed scientific or at least if science is good for us we wouldn't want to say the Bible is unscientific.

Really it comes down to that the Bible accounts of creation are reliable and accurate. The Bible says God created.

But with or without the Bible we have that God created.

And with science we have the study of the natural world, God's creation.

So we must say that in looking at creation vs. evolution a person Bible or not science or not must acknowledge that God has created; that this is His creation. This is to be in step with God, to admit that you and everything around you has been created by God.

If we are talking about science and you see creation vs. evolution, why would you think that if evolution then no creation or if creation or evolution then no creation?
Science has no empirical means with which to include anyone's gods.
There is a thing termed NOMA (Non Overlapping MagisteriA) that explains it better than me. It basically means that science and theism cannot both occupy the same philosophical space.

What you refer to as a specific "God/Creator" I call an "Unknown". I see no reason to presuppose that any personally involved deity has to be concluded from our existence on this tiny speck of dirt in the vastness of a universe almost totally hostile to life.
If an entity of some kind did create the universe then complex life seems to have evolved as a result of that beginning and didn't simply appear out of thin air as YECs want us to believe. :plain:
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Science has no empirical means with which to include anyone's gods.
There is a thing termed NOMA (Non Overlapping MagisteriA) that explains it better than me. It basically means that science and theism cannot both occupy the same philosophical space.

What you refer to as a specific "God/Creator" I call an "Unknown". I see no reason to presuppose that any personally involved deity has to be concluded from our existence on this tiny speck of dirt in the vastness of a universe almost totally hostile to life.
If an entity of some kind did create the universe then complex life seems to have evolved as a result of that beginning and didn't simply appear out of thin air as YECs want us to believe. :plain:
It's not about presupposing a conclusion though.
 

alwight

New member
It's not about presupposing a conclusion though.
Tell that to AiG, they presuppose that Genesis must always remain a literal narrative come what may from science.
I don't know how else you've concluded your specific version of God if not by presupposition that the Bible is His inerrant word?
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Tell that to AiG, they presuppose that Genesis must always remain a literal narrative come what may from science.
I don't know how else you've concluded your specific version of God if not by presupposition that the Bible is His inerrant word?
I think I understand what you are saying.

But I still don't understand how a person could presuppose a conclusion.

I suppose the idea may be that if we see enough evidence of God's existence then He exists.

But the other way of saying it is God exists, He created, and I know I am His creation as is everything else I observe.

That is different from presupposing the Bible though not opposed to it. Now we have Genesis, the creation accounts, and creation revealed in the scriptures throughout the rest of the Bible, even to include in the New Testament writings with Romans 1 where we learn if we did not know it already that creation testifies about God.

But to make a conclusion in science is different than the evidence of the scriptures. In the scriptures that which we read is evidence in the sense that it testifies of something greater, namely God.

So that reading the scriptures and coming to a conclusion thereby is completely different than putting together a scientific experiment and in the end making a conclusion about which our hypothesis hinted at that we believed or objectively wanted to determine, if it would/should be under the given circumstances with the given variables. Here we have a measurement to the situation as it was to begin with and as it was once the experiment came to an end, with a conclusion about it.

But though science is backed by philosophy, and philosophy is independent of science and even theology, we have that people make conclusions in philosophy, theology, and science. But this is not always done in the same manner.

To presuppose a conclusion is not to reason to the truth from evidence. But to not have a starting point for your belief, such as God actually and not merely theoretically, is to misjudge what needs to happen before the conclusion of your life.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Untellectual,

You are the 6,000th poster on my thread here. You should win a prize. All that I can do is play you a song on my 12-string guitar and sing with it. Also you have been on Page 400!! What a beautiful thing!! I'm so proud of you!! AWESOME!!!

God Bless The Time You've Spent On Earth So Far!!

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top