You said my position is weak, so i said, sarcastically, that a position of taking context into consideration is weak, ok.
toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You said my position is weak, so i said, sarcastically, that a position of taking context into consideration is weak, ok.
noguru
Well-known member
Well there are allegories, hyperboles, similes...and many other literary devices peppered throughout all of scripture. It takes reason in the light of historical context to sort these all out.
organiccornflake
New member
Another biblical inaccuracy explained by evolution is the story of noah. How could two of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH fit into a boat 450 feet long? It doesn't make sense unless there weren't as many species back then.
noguru
Well-known member
OK, I'm glad we got that settled.
It beats teaching the impossible godless fallacy of evolution. Oops, did I step on your religion there? :chuckle:
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
Right, the YEC model proposes that only two and fourteen (for clean animals) of each kind were taken upon the ark. IOW, only 2 individuals for all the ring species (like cats, dogs, bears, seagulls...) on earth were taken, and perhaps even up to the class or family level for some types of organisms. Then all the biodiversity we see today evolved in the last few thousand years.
eameece
New member
You think the Bible writers were that careless, eh? You might try science sometime; the standards for careful writing are a bit stricter.
An agnostic can see the obvious where some solid christians cannot. The obvious is that the bible speaks of a literal creation.
Yes they did, but not by RANDOM mutation and natural selection. It was by guided mutation and change occurring because animals were forced into new environments, and they changed in response to that environment.
eameece
New member
No indeed; it proves my point about what a lot of you Republicans want.
The fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from a central point proves that all matter originated from a single point in space.--organic kelloggs cornflakes.
No, it doesn't. It is merely consistent with it. There are other models that are consistent with it as well.
No, it doesn't. It is merely consistent with it. There are other models that are consistent with it as well.
Absolutely but, it has nothing to do with my politics more to do with my beliefs. Why should the lie of evolution not be challenged by creation or intelligent design if you will, after all there is nothing about evolution that goes beyond a grand guess. If kids in public school are as bright as they say they are they can make an intelligent conclusion without the evolutionary indoctrination of lies.
What kind of evolution are we discussing? If we are speaking of adaptation and calling it evolution, I firmly believe we were created to adapt to our environments.
There is plenty of evidence to support this.
There is plenty of evidence to support this.
Adaptation of species, and the notion of monkeys to men as taught in public school is quite different Lighthouse.
The best arguments against theistic evolution are in the bible. For numerous reasons, the bible explicitly denies the possibility of evolution.
How is that changing the text?
That's a pretty accurate analysis. :thumb:
Funny how evolutionists are so eager to declare Genesis "not literal", yet whenever they spot a chance to promote evolution with the bible they jump at it. :chuckle:
Carefully crafted computer code is the best argument for the theistic evolutionist. :chuckle:
Genesis is historical narrative.Selaphiel said:
Six days is six days. :idunno:
How is that changing the text?
Sure, there is. They must account for why the bible consistently, repeatedly and without contradiction upholds "Six days" of creation and a global flood.
That's simply insane. We read the bible and find nothing about evolution. Everything we find on the matter denies the possibility.
And yet the gospel relies upon Genesis as historical narrative. And we are repeatedly warned that the ideas of men are not to be trusted for they are sourced by men who hate God.
The best argument from evolutionists who want to be Christians. :chuckle:
:shocked:
That's a pretty accurate analysis. :thumb:
There are no arguments for or against evolution in the Bible. However, Genesis rules out the possibility of YE creationism.
For numerous reasons, the bible explicitly denies the possibility of evolution.
Originally Posted by ideogenous_mover
As did Solomon say:Ecclesiastes 3:18I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."Is it not humbling to know that you share common ancestors with apes? That sounds like a proper way to put the proud ways of men in their place.
Funny how YEers quickly deny scripture when it doesn't fit their beliefs.
Berean writes:
Ok, I'll bite. I've been a professional engineer since 1998 and have three engineering degrees. I've never used evolutionary processes in my work. What evolutionary processes are we engineers using to solve complex problems?
Barbarian observes:
They are called "genetic algorithms."
Takes a lot of work to approach God's methods. Genetic algorithms are at best poor imitations of God's evolutionary processes. But they work well enough to replace design for complex problems. As usual, God knew better than creationists.
Barbarian observes:
You're partially right. Genesis makes no stand at all on evolution. Those who say that it endorses evolution, or that it denies evolution, are changing the text to suit their own desires.
Unless it's "a long time", "Back in my day" or any of many other uses for "yom" in Hebrew.
Picking and chosing what parts of Genesis you will accept.
Barbarian observes:
However, there is no such problem for Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution.
Doesn't say there was a global flood. That's more of your editing of Scripture. And of course, it means choosing the meaning of "yom" that fits your modern revision of Christianity.
Barbarian observes:
If you claim that the Bible endorses or rejects evolution, you don't believe the Biblical account. Which is O.K. as far as that goes.
It's simply true.
(Stipe admits it)
Nothing about "life ex nihilo", either. In fact, as you know, Genesis refutes that YE doctrine. God says the earth brought forth living things.
But as usual, you can't find anything to support your argument.
Quote:
Barbarian observes:
Whether you accept or deny the way He creates things is not a salvation issue.
In your modern revision, it does. But not for Christians.
Is that why you substitute your ideas for God's?
And the hyperevolution of new species after the flood is far faster than any observed variation, not to mention the fact that no one thought it worth mentioning that new species of animals were popping up monthly.
eameece
New member
Explain what those are please.
eameece
New member
And you Republicans would like to force schools to teach what you erroneously call the truth, instead of what you Republicans erroneously call lies (though it may not be all of the truth).
eameece
New member
OK then let's hear it.
eameece
New member
rocketman, you obviously don't even know what notion you are criticizing. How can you be a rocketman, and yet be so ignorant of biology?