Evolution
- Thread starter univac
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, he created all creatures as they are. However, He did give us the ability to adapt. That is why we have one species, but different breeds.Different dogs, different cats, different humans (races). That is because they all adapted to their surroundings. This is called adaptation (or micro evolution by some).We did NOT come from primates (macro evolution). One word of advice, don't let yourself be forced to believe in evolution. There IS an alternative, and it's called intelligent design. I advise that you look into it, as it is a field of study.
The tower of babel change us into different breeds,before that we were all one breed. I don't know about dogs and cats ...My Reasoning on this matterWhen you see the development of a cell with in a womb, one will notice that the cell divides and divides while forming one age of matter to another and so on.Until it comes to a certain stage and stops developing and life is born.This is dictated by the state of progression of that cell.The egg of the womb is the earth within the womb (abode of space)We are all cells from the body/ loins of God who is our Father and our lord Jesus Christ.Cells are developed in stages according to its kind and sensory. Developed and formed by God's will.As mankind was created on the last stage by God Authority in his own image and likeness.The breath of God gave him life as a living soul as well as a conscience, due to God dwelling in him.As God spirit was not to stay with the flesh of man forever and man was appointed to live 120yearsIt is only by the holy spirit of God that transforms mankind from the current age in the flesh and be born new to the coming age in the spirit. (Evolved state of being)As the intention of our Fathers work in all Creation in the beginning.To evolve from one state to the next by his authority.As a new earth and heaven will be created as a new earth and heaven was created at the beginning.And procreation lives on forever and ever for the glory of God.Just my thoughts on creation
(univac;56652)
The tower of babel change us into different breeds,before that we were all one breed. I don't know about dogs and cats ...My Reasoning on this matterWhen you see the development of a cell with in a womb, one will notice that the cell divides and divides while forming one age of matter to another and so on.Until it comes to a certain stage and stops developing and life is born.This is dictated by the state of progression of that cell.The egg of the womb is the earth within the womb (abode of space)We are all cells from the body/ loins of God who is our Father and our lord Jesus Christ.Cells are developed in stages according to its kind and sensory. Developed and formed by God's will.As mankind was created on the last stage by God Authority in his own image and likeness.The breath of God gave him life as a living soul as well as a conscience, due to God dwelling in him.As God spirit was not to stay with the flesh of man forever and man was appointed to live 120yearsIt is only by the holy spirit of God that transforms mankind from the current age in the flesh and be born new to the coming age in the spirit. (Evolved state of being)As the intention of our Fathers work in all Creation in the beginning.To evolve from one state to the next by his authority.As a new earth and heaven will be created as a new earth and heaven was created at the beginning.And procreation lives on forever and ever for the glory of God.Just my thoughts on creation
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It sounds....odd.But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with all the answers, since it works in a progressive manner toward facts, the theory of evolution has simply provided the best explanation for the similarities that we see among all forms of life - no other theory compares to it. "Intelligent design" has proven to be far from an intelligent theory based in real science, and its sister mode of thought, creationism, works more to try and "poked holes" in evolution rather than provide a better explanation. However, with that said, evolution does not deny the existence of God, and there are many Christians out there who harmonize what they see in the world with what they believe in their hearts. Whether God created us as we are or whether He used the natural processes of evolution doesn't in any way deny His power to create, nor His power over creation.
The tower of babel change us into different breeds,before that we were all one breed. I don't know about dogs and cats ...My Reasoning on this matterWhen you see the development of a cell with in a womb, one will notice that the cell divides and divides while forming one age of matter to another and so on.Until it comes to a certain stage and stops developing and life is born.This is dictated by the state of progression of that cell.The egg of the womb is the earth within the womb (abode of space)We are all cells from the body/ loins of God who is our Father and our lord Jesus Christ.Cells are developed in stages according to its kind and sensory. Developed and formed by God's will.As mankind was created on the last stage by God Authority in his own image and likeness.The breath of God gave him life as a living soul as well as a conscience, due to God dwelling in him.As God spirit was not to stay with the flesh of man forever and man was appointed to live 120yearsIt is only by the holy spirit of God that transforms mankind from the current age in the flesh and be born new to the coming age in the spirit. (Evolved state of being)As the intention of our Fathers work in all Creation in the beginning.To evolve from one state to the next by his authority.As a new earth and heaven will be created as a new earth and heaven was created at the beginning.And procreation lives on forever and ever for the glory of God.Just my thoughts on creation
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It sounds....odd.But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with all the answers, since it works in a progressive manner toward facts, the theory of evolution has simply provided the best explanation for the similarities that we see among all forms of life - no other theory compares to it. "Intelligent design" has proven to be far from an intelligent theory based in real science, and its sister mode of thought, creationism, works more to try and "poked holes" in evolution rather than provide a better explanation. However, with that said, evolution does not deny the existence of God, and there are many Christians out there who harmonize what they see in the world with what they believe in their hearts. Whether God created us as we are or whether He used the natural processes of evolution doesn't in any way deny His power to create, nor His power over creation.
how can we know precisely what God did, the story is not that detailed. And what does it really matter if one holds to the young earth theory.
(waquinas;56669)
how can we know precisely what God did, the story is not that detailed. And what does it really matter if one holds to the young earth theory.
Well it does limit God's Words. And yes we can know what He says, but not without His Wisdom. Does He not giveth that asketh? Or does men thinks He is wrong?Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible. His Word is clear as water if one knows where to look on what He says.
how can we know precisely what God did, the story is not that detailed. And what does it really matter if one holds to the young earth theory.
Well it does limit God's Words. And yes we can know what He says, but not without His Wisdom. Does He not giveth that asketh? Or does men thinks He is wrong?Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible. His Word is clear as water if one knows where to look on what He says.
(waquinas;56669)
how can we know precisely what God did, the story is not that detailed. And what does it really matter if one holds to the young earth theory.
Exactly - the story isn't detailed, which to me at least, tends to imply that perhaps it isn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Or at least, not in a literal, six-day sense, but rather in a literal, ages-of-time sense. The word used for "day" can be used in that sense, so it can still be taken literally, but substituting a different meaning for the word instead. However, it matters if one holds to the young earth theory because this is absolutely useless to the progress of science. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation that allows scientists to test or predict. It's just an observation - you look at a cow and ask, "Why is a cow like that?" Well, God made it like that. And that's that. Evolution allows scientists to test and make predictions, and therefore is a much better theory. It also falls in line with observations that we make about the earth, which creationists can't explain - or they do a very bad job at explaining. And believe me, I used to be an ardent creationist until I actually decided to look at the evidence in favour of evolution, and found that the evidence vastly outweighed my own in favour of creationism.(thesuperjag;56670)
Well it does limit God's Words. And yes we can know what He says, but not without His Wisdom. Does He not giveth that asketh? Or does men thinks He is wrong?Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible. His Word is clear as water if one knows where to look on what He says.
Does it truly limit God's words? Or does it simply limit your interpretation of those words? Does evolution limit God? No. God can still be in control of the weather, even though we know that weather follows natural processes. In the same way, God can still be in control of life itself, though we can determine that life follows natural processes as well.Your sentence "Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible" is really redundant, as I am assuming that you believe evolution to be a lie because it goes against the Bible (or your interpretation of it, at any rate). Since when did the words of a book take precedence over observable fact? If we can observe the effects of evolution, and we see it plainly in front of us, then should we not wonder whether we are simply interpreting the beginning of Genesis incorrectly? The point is that the story is not clear like water, as you say. If, for example, you read a story of one of Aesop's fables, does it mention anywhere in there that the story is not literal - that it's just a story? No. Or take any fictional work. Does it mention that it's meant to be fiction? Of course not. It simply is, and the only way we can know that it is fiction is because it does not fit in with our observations of reality. Talking animals don't normally occur, so we assume that Aesop was writing a story in order to teach a lesson.So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...
how can we know precisely what God did, the story is not that detailed. And what does it really matter if one holds to the young earth theory.
Exactly - the story isn't detailed, which to me at least, tends to imply that perhaps it isn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Or at least, not in a literal, six-day sense, but rather in a literal, ages-of-time sense. The word used for "day" can be used in that sense, so it can still be taken literally, but substituting a different meaning for the word instead. However, it matters if one holds to the young earth theory because this is absolutely useless to the progress of science. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation that allows scientists to test or predict. It's just an observation - you look at a cow and ask, "Why is a cow like that?" Well, God made it like that. And that's that. Evolution allows scientists to test and make predictions, and therefore is a much better theory. It also falls in line with observations that we make about the earth, which creationists can't explain - or they do a very bad job at explaining. And believe me, I used to be an ardent creationist until I actually decided to look at the evidence in favour of evolution, and found that the evidence vastly outweighed my own in favour of creationism.(thesuperjag;56670)
Well it does limit God's Words. And yes we can know what He says, but not without His Wisdom. Does He not giveth that asketh? Or does men thinks He is wrong?Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible. His Word is clear as water if one knows where to look on what He says.
Does it truly limit God's words? Or does it simply limit your interpretation of those words? Does evolution limit God? No. God can still be in control of the weather, even though we know that weather follows natural processes. In the same way, God can still be in control of life itself, though we can determine that life follows natural processes as well.Your sentence "Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible" is really redundant, as I am assuming that you believe evolution to be a lie because it goes against the Bible (or your interpretation of it, at any rate). Since when did the words of a book take precedence over observable fact? If we can observe the effects of evolution, and we see it plainly in front of us, then should we not wonder whether we are simply interpreting the beginning of Genesis incorrectly? The point is that the story is not clear like water, as you say. If, for example, you read a story of one of Aesop's fables, does it mention anywhere in there that the story is not literal - that it's just a story? No. Or take any fictional work. Does it mention that it's meant to be fiction? Of course not. It simply is, and the only way we can know that it is fiction is because it does not fit in with our observations of reality. Talking animals don't normally occur, so we assume that Aesop was writing a story in order to teach a lesson.So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...
(jeffhughes;56671)
(thesuperjag;56670)
Does it truly limit God's words? Or does it simply limit your interpretation of those words? Does evolution limit God? No. God can still be in control of the weather, even though we know that weather follows natural processes. In the same way, God can still be in control of life itself, though we can determine that life follows natural processes as well.Your sentence "Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible" is really redundant, as I am assuming that you believe evolution to be a lie because it goes against the Bible (or your interpretation of it, at any rate). Since when did the words of a book take precedence over observable fact? If we can observe the effects of evolution, and we see it plainly in front of us, then should we not wonder whether we are simply interpreting the beginning of Genesis incorrectly? The point is that the story is not clear like water, as you say. If, for example, you read a story of one of Aesop's fables, does it mention anywhere in there that the story is not literal - that it's just a story? No. Or take any fictional work. Does it mention that it's meant to be fiction? Of course not. It simply is, and the only way we can know that it is fiction is because it does not fit in with our observations of reality. Talking animals don't normally occur, so we assume that Aesop was writing a story in order to teach a lesson.So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...Can you show me than man came from apes? Can you show me that animals came from a different species of animals? And another thing, can you show me where Earth is flat? I don't even trust Charles Darwin.
(thesuperjag;56670)
Does it truly limit God's words? Or does it simply limit your interpretation of those words? Does evolution limit God? No. God can still be in control of the weather, even though we know that weather follows natural processes. In the same way, God can still be in control of life itself, though we can determine that life follows natural processes as well.Your sentence "Besides Evolution is a lie and goes against the bible" is really redundant, as I am assuming that you believe evolution to be a lie because it goes against the Bible (or your interpretation of it, at any rate). Since when did the words of a book take precedence over observable fact? If we can observe the effects of evolution, and we see it plainly in front of us, then should we not wonder whether we are simply interpreting the beginning of Genesis incorrectly? The point is that the story is not clear like water, as you say. If, for example, you read a story of one of Aesop's fables, does it mention anywhere in there that the story is not literal - that it's just a story? No. Or take any fictional work. Does it mention that it's meant to be fiction? Of course not. It simply is, and the only way we can know that it is fiction is because it does not fit in with our observations of reality. Talking animals don't normally occur, so we assume that Aesop was writing a story in order to teach a lesson.So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...Can you show me than man came from apes? Can you show me that animals came from a different species of animals? And another thing, can you show me where Earth is flat? I don't even trust Charles Darwin.
Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves..." —Psalm 100:3
(jeffhughes;56671)
Exactly - the story isn't detailed, which to me at least, tends to imply that perhaps it isn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Or at least, not in a literal, six-day sense, but rather in a literal, ages-of-time sense. The word used for "day" can be used in that sense, so it can still be taken literally, but substituting a different meaning for the word instead.
I do not see how day can be used different. We are not supposed to change Gods word.(jeffhughes;56671)
However, it matters if one holds to the young earth theory because this is absolutely useless to the progress of science. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation that allows scientists to test or predict. It's just an observation - you look at a cow and ask, "Why is a cow like that?" Well, God made it like that. And that's that. Evolution allows scientists to test and make predictions, and therefore is a much better theory. It also falls in line with observations that we make about the earth, which creationists can't explain - or they do a very bad job at explaining. And believe me, I used to be an ardent creationist until I actually decided to look at the evidence in favour of evolution, and found that the evidence vastly outweighed my own in favour of creationism.
The geological and Biblical evidence are in agreement with an old earth. Young earth creationist are wrong in this case. (jeffhughes;56671)
So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.
Well it has to be one or the other they cannot be both no. I think it should be taken literally.Titus 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Now in Luke 3:23 it starts to list of Jesus' genealogy at the end we see...Luke 3:38Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.Can God lie?1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.Can God lie?1 Timothy 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.I ask again can God lie? is he lying to us?(jeffhughes;56671)
I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...
there is a very big difference though. We can see that the earth is a sphere. We have never observed that a human evolved from something else. We have the geological record which is great but just because something is similar does not mean that it came or evolved into something else. It is a mistake to think that God would try to re-invent the wheel millions upon millions of times over. We know not to re-invent the wheel you would think our creator would too.
Exactly - the story isn't detailed, which to me at least, tends to imply that perhaps it isn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Or at least, not in a literal, six-day sense, but rather in a literal, ages-of-time sense. The word used for "day" can be used in that sense, so it can still be taken literally, but substituting a different meaning for the word instead.
I do not see how day can be used different. We are not supposed to change Gods word.(jeffhughes;56671)
However, it matters if one holds to the young earth theory because this is absolutely useless to the progress of science. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation that allows scientists to test or predict. It's just an observation - you look at a cow and ask, "Why is a cow like that?" Well, God made it like that. And that's that. Evolution allows scientists to test and make predictions, and therefore is a much better theory. It also falls in line with observations that we make about the earth, which creationists can't explain - or they do a very bad job at explaining. And believe me, I used to be an ardent creationist until I actually decided to look at the evidence in favour of evolution, and found that the evidence vastly outweighed my own in favour of creationism.
The geological and Biblical evidence are in agreement with an old earth. Young earth creationist are wrong in this case. (jeffhughes;56671)
So now we look at the creation account. Does it say it is meant to be literal? No. Does it say it's meant to be figurative? No. So instead we look to the observation of reality in order to determine which one it is - and any competent scientist will tell you that evolution has, quite honestly, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So then we go back to our Genesis account and ask ourselves, "Is there still a moral lesson to be learned here?" Of course. We know that God exists and that He is in control. We know that He has designated man to be special by instilling us with a soul. We know that nothing happens without God's knowledge or consent, and we know that despite our ability to be the blameless image of God, man has fallen into sin and thus is in need of a Saviour.
Well it has to be one or the other they cannot be both no. I think it should be taken literally.Titus 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Now in Luke 3:23 it starts to list of Jesus' genealogy at the end we see...Luke 3:38Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.Can God lie?1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.Can God lie?1 Timothy 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.I ask again can God lie? is he lying to us?(jeffhughes;56671)
I don't see the purpose of ignoring the factual evidence in order to cling to a specific interpretation of the Bible. It's akin to insisting that the world is flat despite the photographs of the Earth from space...
there is a very big difference though. We can see that the earth is a sphere. We have never observed that a human evolved from something else. We have the geological record which is great but just because something is similar does not mean that it came or evolved into something else. It is a mistake to think that God would try to re-invent the wheel millions upon millions of times over. We know not to re-invent the wheel you would think our creator would too.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(jeffhughes;56656)
...But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with ...
Science has not proved any part of evolution. They take a little piece of bone found somewhere and build it into a man, that's poppy-cock! Evolution is just a theory , and it is far harder to believe than creation. Science can't even tell you how life started, let along make something live.Univac, "The tower of babel change us into different breeds,before that we were all one breed." NO! God changed the languages humans spoke as the result of the tower, he did not change the "breed."
...But to answer your original question, science has shown that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. It is well researched, well proven, and well documented, and although science hasn't come up with ...
Science has not proved any part of evolution. They take a little piece of bone found somewhere and build it into a man, that's poppy-cock! Evolution is just a theory , and it is far harder to believe than creation. Science can't even tell you how life started, let along make something live.Univac, "The tower of babel change us into different breeds,before that we were all one breed." NO! God changed the languages humans spoke as the result of the tower, he did not change the "breed."
(thesuperjag;56672)
Can you show me than man came from apes? Can you show me that animals came from a different species of animals? And another thing, can you show me where Earth is flat? I don't even trust Charles Darwin.
The documentation regarding man's evolution from apes is quite complete, to the point where creationists themselves don't exactly know where to draw the line between what are "apes" and what are "men." If we see a gradual transition with traits being changed over time, then does it not lend to the conclusion that there IS a gradual transition with traits being changed over time? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and feels like a duck, it's probably a duck.As for the earth being flat, there are several places where the Bible implies that the earth is flat. For example Daniel 4:11 talks about a tall tree that was visible "to the ends of the earth", which of course would not be possible on a spherical earth. As well, when Jesus is tempted by Satan, he is taken up onto a mountain to see "all the kingdoms of the world", again implying a flat earth. There is even a Christian society that advocates a flat earth because of their strict interpretation of the Bible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society(Alpha and Omega;56677)
I do not see how day can be used different. We are not supposed to change Gods word.
The word "yom" in Hebrew has several meanings - which is exactly how we can use our English word "day" in several ways. Like, "in Abraham's day," or "this is the dawn of a new day," both talking about a period of time which is clearly longer than a 24-hour period. The Hebrew word has this same capability, so it's not a matter of "changing God's word," only interpreting it differently, according to a perfectly good interpretation that fits with the original Hebrew.(Alpha and Omega;56677)
The geological and Biblical evidence are in agreement with an old earth. Young earth creationist are wrong in this case.
Well then we agree on something. I seem to remember that you are one of those "gap theory" guys
(Alpha and Omega;56677)
Well it has to be one or the other they cannot be both no. I think it should be taken literally.
The point is that I am still taking the text literally, just not using the word as a specific 24-hour period of time. At any rate, we agree on the age of the earth, so I don't feel that this is really a problem. (Alpha and Omega;56677)
Titus 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Now in Luke 3:23 it starts to list of Jesus' genealogy at the end we see...Luke 3:38Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.Can God lie?1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.Can God lie?1 Timothy 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.I ask again can God lie? is he lying to us?
God doesn't have to be lying to us in order for us to misinterpret His word. If the Jews took Genesis to be literal, then they would naturally say these sort of things. At any rate, I don't think this is really the issue. Considering the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Bible in some places, it seems natural to assume that we may have interpreted it wrongly. To give you a "for instance," let's just assume for a moment that we could prove evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. (I believe that this can be done, but that's beside the point for now.) Now, would you still cling to God's word as being right, despite the proof in front of you? If the Bible said that gravity did not exist, and yet you saw it everywhere around you, which would you be more likely to believe? I'm going to assume that you would say gravity. This shows that in cases of natural evidence, it should be the evidence that takes priority over a possible misinterpretation of the Bible. This isn't to say that the Bible is wrong, but I'm trying to establish that if I can show evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, it's then reasonable to assume that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Please let me know whether you agree with what I've said before I waste more of my finger energy typing out more...(Alpha and Omega;56677)
there is a very big difference though. We can see that the earth is a sphere. We have never observed that a human evolved from something else. We have the geological record which is great but just because something is similar does not mean that it came or evolved into something else. It is a mistake to think that God would try to re-invent the wheel millions upon millions of times over. We know not to re-invent the wheel you would think our creator would too.
That's the point. God wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel if each organism is derived from previous organisms. To say that God created each animal individually is more of a "reinvention of the wheel" than God using the animals to produce more animals.As for what you mentioned from the geological record, I will grant that it is not absolute proof - but nothing about science is, technically. David Hume raised the "problem of induction," which basically says that because of the nature of inductive arguments, there will always be a jump from the premises to the conclusion. I'll let you look that up on Google if you want more info....but science works by building a case for the evidence. Like gravity. Drop a book 100 times, and it's a strong possibility that on the 101st try, it'll fall to the ground as well. We can never know for sure, but the case grows with more attempts. In the same way, the theory of evolution provides predictions that say, "if evolution is true, we should see this" - and then we go out and observe, and hey! it's how we predicted it! One more point for evolution. And on a side note, we have seen evolution in action, not only with so-called "microevolution," but also with full-blown speciation. I'm going to provide a link at the end of this that has info on it. Obviously we've never seen lizards turn to birds, etc., but speciation is a huge observation in that direction, essentially new species being born. And that goes beyond microevolution.(tomwebster;56678)
Science has not proved any part of evolution. They take a little piece of bone found somewhere and build it into a man, that's poppy-cock! Evolution is just a theory , and it is far harder to believe than creation.
Science has proven evolution as much as they have proven other theories such as germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. Saying "Evolution is just a theory" is the same as saying "Gravity is just a theory" - the term "theory" in science is used in a completely different way than in the colloquial usage. To us, a theory is just a hunch or a guess. To scientists, a theory is a strong framework for forming hypotheses and predictions, and one that has withstood rigorous testing.As for taking a little piece of bone and building it into a man, no respectable scientists do this to the extent you are talking about. They may make inferences as to what missing bones may look like, or take a guess as to what an organism might have looked like with skin on its bones, but generally these are tentative, and then the media comes along and displays them as, "This is what so-and-so looked like!" In the cases where non-respectable scientists make unwarranted inferences, they are generally caught pretty quickly and retracted, due to the peer review process. That's what makes science so strong, is its process of peer review. Unfortunately, the same sort of thing tends NOT to happen among most creationists. Since they have already agreed to a set of assumptions, the other creationists will gladly conform rather than challenging those assumptions. But that's an aside.(tomwebster;56678)
Science can't even tell you how life started, let along make something live.
Since when were either of these a requirement of science, or of evolution? That's the same thing as saying, "Well we can't trust geologists, because they can't even make new rocks." Science has provided several workable hypotheses about how life started (look up theories of abiogenesis), but that is a completely different topic from evolution. The theory of evolution simply talks about how life changes once it gets here - and we know that whether abiogenesis is right or wrong, we are here, so we can at least work with what we do know. As for making something live, who cares? There have been attempts, but even if we never make "new life," does it mean that science is somehow proven false? Of course not. That's similar to telling an infertile couple that because they can't have children, they are not real people. It's a ridiculous statement.At any rate, I've spouted on far too long, so I will leave you all with a very important link:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlThis is a list of every creationist claim you could ever think of, and several reasons why it is wrong. It uses sensible arguments, and it builds on scientific evidence that is done by reputable scientists. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Take a look at what Answers in Genesis is saying, and then cross-reference it with this site to take a look at the counter-argument. Without looking at the evidence against what is said by creationists, you can never truly say that "this is the truth." To ignore half the evidence is not searching for truth, it's searching for confirmation of what you believe.If you are actually interested in finding the truth, look at the site. If you're only concerned with supporting what you already believe, then fine. Just don't argue about it, because you will only be spouting off arguments that have already been thoroughly discredited. Thank you.
Can you show me than man came from apes? Can you show me that animals came from a different species of animals? And another thing, can you show me where Earth is flat? I don't even trust Charles Darwin.
The documentation regarding man's evolution from apes is quite complete, to the point where creationists themselves don't exactly know where to draw the line between what are "apes" and what are "men." If we see a gradual transition with traits being changed over time, then does it not lend to the conclusion that there IS a gradual transition with traits being changed over time? If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and feels like a duck, it's probably a duck.As for the earth being flat, there are several places where the Bible implies that the earth is flat. For example Daniel 4:11 talks about a tall tree that was visible "to the ends of the earth", which of course would not be possible on a spherical earth. As well, when Jesus is tempted by Satan, he is taken up onto a mountain to see "all the kingdoms of the world", again implying a flat earth. There is even a Christian society that advocates a flat earth because of their strict interpretation of the Bible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society(Alpha and Omega;56677)
I do not see how day can be used different. We are not supposed to change Gods word.
The word "yom" in Hebrew has several meanings - which is exactly how we can use our English word "day" in several ways. Like, "in Abraham's day," or "this is the dawn of a new day," both talking about a period of time which is clearly longer than a 24-hour period. The Hebrew word has this same capability, so it's not a matter of "changing God's word," only interpreting it differently, according to a perfectly good interpretation that fits with the original Hebrew.(Alpha and Omega;56677)
The geological and Biblical evidence are in agreement with an old earth. Young earth creationist are wrong in this case.
Well then we agree on something. I seem to remember that you are one of those "gap theory" guys
Well it has to be one or the other they cannot be both no. I think it should be taken literally.
The point is that I am still taking the text literally, just not using the word as a specific 24-hour period of time. At any rate, we agree on the age of the earth, so I don't feel that this is really a problem. (Alpha and Omega;56677)
Titus 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Now in Luke 3:23 it starts to list of Jesus' genealogy at the end we see...Luke 3:38Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.Can God lie?1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.Can God lie?1 Timothy 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.I ask again can God lie? is he lying to us?
God doesn't have to be lying to us in order for us to misinterpret His word. If the Jews took Genesis to be literal, then they would naturally say these sort of things. At any rate, I don't think this is really the issue. Considering the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Bible in some places, it seems natural to assume that we may have interpreted it wrongly. To give you a "for instance," let's just assume for a moment that we could prove evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. (I believe that this can be done, but that's beside the point for now.) Now, would you still cling to God's word as being right, despite the proof in front of you? If the Bible said that gravity did not exist, and yet you saw it everywhere around you, which would you be more likely to believe? I'm going to assume that you would say gravity. This shows that in cases of natural evidence, it should be the evidence that takes priority over a possible misinterpretation of the Bible. This isn't to say that the Bible is wrong, but I'm trying to establish that if I can show evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, it's then reasonable to assume that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Please let me know whether you agree with what I've said before I waste more of my finger energy typing out more...(Alpha and Omega;56677)
there is a very big difference though. We can see that the earth is a sphere. We have never observed that a human evolved from something else. We have the geological record which is great but just because something is similar does not mean that it came or evolved into something else. It is a mistake to think that God would try to re-invent the wheel millions upon millions of times over. We know not to re-invent the wheel you would think our creator would too.
That's the point. God wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel if each organism is derived from previous organisms. To say that God created each animal individually is more of a "reinvention of the wheel" than God using the animals to produce more animals.As for what you mentioned from the geological record, I will grant that it is not absolute proof - but nothing about science is, technically. David Hume raised the "problem of induction," which basically says that because of the nature of inductive arguments, there will always be a jump from the premises to the conclusion. I'll let you look that up on Google if you want more info....but science works by building a case for the evidence. Like gravity. Drop a book 100 times, and it's a strong possibility that on the 101st try, it'll fall to the ground as well. We can never know for sure, but the case grows with more attempts. In the same way, the theory of evolution provides predictions that say, "if evolution is true, we should see this" - and then we go out and observe, and hey! it's how we predicted it! One more point for evolution. And on a side note, we have seen evolution in action, not only with so-called "microevolution," but also with full-blown speciation. I'm going to provide a link at the end of this that has info on it. Obviously we've never seen lizards turn to birds, etc., but speciation is a huge observation in that direction, essentially new species being born. And that goes beyond microevolution.(tomwebster;56678)
Science has not proved any part of evolution. They take a little piece of bone found somewhere and build it into a man, that's poppy-cock! Evolution is just a theory , and it is far harder to believe than creation.
Science has proven evolution as much as they have proven other theories such as germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. Saying "Evolution is just a theory" is the same as saying "Gravity is just a theory" - the term "theory" in science is used in a completely different way than in the colloquial usage. To us, a theory is just a hunch or a guess. To scientists, a theory is a strong framework for forming hypotheses and predictions, and one that has withstood rigorous testing.As for taking a little piece of bone and building it into a man, no respectable scientists do this to the extent you are talking about. They may make inferences as to what missing bones may look like, or take a guess as to what an organism might have looked like with skin on its bones, but generally these are tentative, and then the media comes along and displays them as, "This is what so-and-so looked like!" In the cases where non-respectable scientists make unwarranted inferences, they are generally caught pretty quickly and retracted, due to the peer review process. That's what makes science so strong, is its process of peer review. Unfortunately, the same sort of thing tends NOT to happen among most creationists. Since they have already agreed to a set of assumptions, the other creationists will gladly conform rather than challenging those assumptions. But that's an aside.(tomwebster;56678)
Science can't even tell you how life started, let along make something live.
Since when were either of these a requirement of science, or of evolution? That's the same thing as saying, "Well we can't trust geologists, because they can't even make new rocks." Science has provided several workable hypotheses about how life started (look up theories of abiogenesis), but that is a completely different topic from evolution. The theory of evolution simply talks about how life changes once it gets here - and we know that whether abiogenesis is right or wrong, we are here, so we can at least work with what we do know. As for making something live, who cares? There have been attempts, but even if we never make "new life," does it mean that science is somehow proven false? Of course not. That's similar to telling an infertile couple that because they can't have children, they are not real people. It's a ridiculous statement.At any rate, I've spouted on far too long, so I will leave you all with a very important link:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlThis is a list of every creationist claim you could ever think of, and several reasons why it is wrong. It uses sensible arguments, and it builds on scientific evidence that is done by reputable scientists. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Take a look at what Answers in Genesis is saying, and then cross-reference it with this site to take a look at the counter-argument. Without looking at the evidence against what is said by creationists, you can never truly say that "this is the truth." To ignore half the evidence is not searching for truth, it's searching for confirmation of what you believe.If you are actually interested in finding the truth, look at the site. If you're only concerned with supporting what you already believe, then fine. Just don't argue about it, because you will only be spouting off arguments that have already been thoroughly discredited. Thank you.
The Word of God doesn't support the Theory of Evolution, and neither do I. Bottom line. Like it or leave it, the choice is ours.Evolution (change over time) does not have to be swallowed along w/ the Theory of Evolution (change over millions of years accredited for our coming to be). The act of change over time (evolution) is true, the theory that we have evolved over millions of years (Theory of Evolution) is not true.
Does anyone get as tired of this argument as I do
The only reason this continues to be an argument amoung Christians is plain lack to understand what the scripture says, it explains it just fine however the Christians that insist on listening to Men rather than God will not accept the facts, because they can not believe knowledge has increased and mysyeries have been reaveled and their churches are teaching doctrines on this matter that were formed hundreds of years ago when the earth was still thought to be the center of the universe they will not believe anything else reguardless of what the scriptures really say.Then there are the science minded Christians that realize the teachings that have been accepted and taught can not possiably be true or you have to throw out almost every scientific discovery made by all sciences. This just defies logic in their minds,and rightly so. So in their minds, men(of science) must be right for lack of any other explanation. Again this is a lack to understand what the scriptures really say. But when shown ...it isnt what they have alway been taught so the truth of God loses again to mens ideas. God has said he fore told us all things and so he has ...just because one does not understand it does not mean it is not written. But alas the same argument will go on and on for lack of hearing and seeing the Word of God the religionists will hold to their beliefs the Scientific minded to their beliefs and the debate goes on.
The only reason this continues to be an argument amoung Christians is plain lack to understand what the scripture says, it explains it just fine however the Christians that insist on listening to Men rather than God will not accept the facts, because they can not believe knowledge has increased and mysyeries have been reaveled and their churches are teaching doctrines on this matter that were formed hundreds of years ago when the earth was still thought to be the center of the universe they will not believe anything else reguardless of what the scriptures really say.Then there are the science minded Christians that realize the teachings that have been accepted and taught can not possiably be true or you have to throw out almost every scientific discovery made by all sciences. This just defies logic in their minds,and rightly so. So in their minds, men(of science) must be right for lack of any other explanation. Again this is a lack to understand what the scriptures really say. But when shown ...it isnt what they have alway been taught so the truth of God loses again to mens ideas. God has said he fore told us all things and so he has ...just because one does not understand it does not mean it is not written. But alas the same argument will go on and on for lack of hearing and seeing the Word of God the religionists will hold to their beliefs the Scientific minded to their beliefs and the debate goes on.(kriss;56703)
Does anyone get as tired of this argument as I do
The only reason this continues to be an argument amoung Christians is plain lack to understand what the scripture says, it explains it just fine however the Christians that insist on listening to Men rather than God will not accept the facts, because they can not believe knowledge has increased and mysyeries have been reaveled and their churches are teaching doctrines on this matter that were formed hundreds of years ago when the earth was still thought to be the center of the universe they will not believe anything else reguardless of what the scriptures really say.Then there are the science minded Christians that realize the teachings that have been accepted and taught can not possiably be true or you have to throw out almost every scientific discovery made by all sciences. This just defies logic in their minds,and rightly so. So in their minds, men(of science) must be right for lack of any other explanation. Again this is a lack to understand what the scriptures really say. But when shown ...it isnt what they have alway been taught so the truth of God loses again to mens ideas. God has said he fore told us all things and so he has ...just because one does not understand it does not mean it is not written. But alas the same argument will go on and on for lack of hearing and seeing the Word of God the religionists will hold to their beliefs the Scientific minded to their beliefs and the debate goes on.
Yes, I am also tired of this argument Christina. And you're right God has foretold us ALL things. (Mark 13:23) and knowledge has increased. (Daniel 12:4)Sadly, God expects us to use Common Sense and men doesn't.
Does anyone get as tired of this argument as I do
Yes, I am also tired of this argument Christina. And you're right God has foretold us ALL things. (Mark 13:23) and knowledge has increased. (Daniel 12:4)Sadly, God expects us to use Common Sense and men doesn't.
I don't think most people and Christians would agree that knowledge has increased. That being said, also I beileve the devil has great knowledge! And, I think it is fair to say that he has not applied that knowledge wisely.This is where Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution fall. They seek knowledge in science, and then go into the poor application of that knowledge, which is the Theory of Evolution. I have yet to find any reason, scientifically, or Biblically, to believe the Theory of Evolution. I thank God for His Word.
(treeoflife;56706)
I don't think most people and Christians would agree that knowledge has increased. That being said, also I beileve the devil has great knowledge! And, I think it is fair to say that he has not applied that knowledge wisely.This is where Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution fall. They seek knowledge in science, and then go into the poor application of that knowledge, which is the Theory of Evolution. I have yet to find any reason, scientifically, or Biblically, to believe the Theory of Evolution. I thank God for His Word.
True God says nothing of Evolution he is the creator and says of his creation "it is Good" He also created the laws of nature one of which is the survival of the fittest to preserve his creation. No one has ever seen a fish become a bird, a fossil of a snail whether 5000 years old or 20 years old is still a snail. No missing link between ape and man has ever been found because it does not exist. I recently posted on Neanderthal Man ..guess what not the same species as us. The problem isnt with the believing God created all things with most Christian Evolutionists its the time frame.. that is fault of Mens traditions not Gods Word God never says the earth is young, Men say the earth is young. Any science mined person can not buy this as fact. And due to lack of understanding are left with mens ideas as the alternative. So the fault still lies with men Not God
I don't think most people and Christians would agree that knowledge has increased. That being said, also I beileve the devil has great knowledge! And, I think it is fair to say that he has not applied that knowledge wisely.This is where Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution fall. They seek knowledge in science, and then go into the poor application of that knowledge, which is the Theory of Evolution. I have yet to find any reason, scientifically, or Biblically, to believe the Theory of Evolution. I thank God for His Word.
True God says nothing of Evolution he is the creator and says of his creation "it is Good" He also created the laws of nature one of which is the survival of the fittest to preserve his creation. No one has ever seen a fish become a bird, a fossil of a snail whether 5000 years old or 20 years old is still a snail. No missing link between ape and man has ever been found because it does not exist. I recently posted on Neanderthal Man ..guess what not the same species as us. The problem isnt with the believing God created all things with most Christian Evolutionists its the time frame.. that is fault of Mens traditions not Gods Word God never says the earth is young, Men say the earth is young. Any science mined person can not buy this as fact. And due to lack of understanding are left with mens ideas as the alternative. So the fault still lies with men Not God
(jeffhughes;56712)
(treeoflife;56702)
The Word of God doesn't support the Theory of Evolution, and neither do I. Bottom line. Like it or leave it, the choice is ours.
To you, the Bible doesn't support the theory of evolution because you have already accepted an interpretation of it that may or may not be justified. We truly do not know whether the creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally or not, so it is not a lack of faith to simply say that we should let the evidence determine the interpretation that is justified. I have found several good arguments for the day-age theory, which attempts to interpret Genesis in light of what we have discovered about evolution. I leave them for you here - you may choose to accept or reject them, but just know that the possibility is there.http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/day.html - this talks a lot about the arguments for a literal interpretationhttp://www.theistic-evolution.com/th...evolution.html - an excellent explanation of theistic evolutionhttp://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocdayage.html - good explanation of day-age theoryBut we do know that Genesis is literal.Genesis 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good....Genesis 1:20-21 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good....Genesis 1:24-25 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And lastlyGenesis 1:26-28 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.(jeffhughes;56712)
(thesuperjag;56705)
Yes, I am also tired of this argument Christina. And you're right God has foretold us ALL things. (Mark 13:23) and knowledge has increased. (Daniel 12:4)
But how has knowledge increased? By, of course, the methods and practices of science. Our knowledge of how the world operates and functions has grown dramatically in just the past 50 years due to science. I'm not saying that science is the be-all, end-all, nor that it is the only method of gaining knowledge, but it is certainly one way that knowledge has increased.Look around, You can have knowledge in video games, you can have knowledge in science, knowledge in cooking food, knowledge in knowing any type of company, etc... That's how you can tell how knowledge has increased...Don't forget the knowledge of the Word of God is what we need to survive... certainly not that lie of Evolution.
(treeoflife;56702)
The Word of God doesn't support the Theory of Evolution, and neither do I. Bottom line. Like it or leave it, the choice is ours.
To you, the Bible doesn't support the theory of evolution because you have already accepted an interpretation of it that may or may not be justified. We truly do not know whether the creation account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally or not, so it is not a lack of faith to simply say that we should let the evidence determine the interpretation that is justified. I have found several good arguments for the day-age theory, which attempts to interpret Genesis in light of what we have discovered about evolution. I leave them for you here - you may choose to accept or reject them, but just know that the possibility is there.http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/day.html - this talks a lot about the arguments for a literal interpretationhttp://www.theistic-evolution.com/th...evolution.html - an excellent explanation of theistic evolutionhttp://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocdayage.html - good explanation of day-age theoryBut we do know that Genesis is literal.Genesis 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good....Genesis 1:20-21 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good....Genesis 1:24-25 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And lastlyGenesis 1:26-28 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.(jeffhughes;56712)
(thesuperjag;56705)
Yes, I am also tired of this argument Christina. And you're right God has foretold us ALL things. (Mark 13:23) and knowledge has increased. (Daniel 12:4)
But how has knowledge increased? By, of course, the methods and practices of science. Our knowledge of how the world operates and functions has grown dramatically in just the past 50 years due to science. I'm not saying that science is the be-all, end-all, nor that it is the only method of gaining knowledge, but it is certainly one way that knowledge has increased.Look around, You can have knowledge in video games, you can have knowledge in science, knowledge in cooking food, knowledge in knowing any type of company, etc... That's how you can tell how knowledge has increased...Don't forget the knowledge of the Word of God is what we need to survive... certainly not that lie of Evolution.
Similar threads
