Creation vs. Evolution Apologetics

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25636)
For Lifenotice I have told you what Gods Word says BT has told you to watch a mans videothere never has been any proof of evolution there are simply creatures(fossils) from the first earth age and creaters from this eath age. Evolution is a non-proved theroy of men because of lack of ability to grasp and or believe in God.
Very weak.First, your understanding of Hebrew is very little, as is apparent. First, I suggest you use more than one lexicon and cross reference, and perhaps go to a Rabbi and ask how he reads this passage in his own tongue. I think you will find that your understanding is not largely shared.Also, notice that nobody has asked me yet what I think Genesis actually says. You're proposition is certainly not in line with traditional Christianity, and thus, is a new doctrine until you can prove otherwise. I would not claim any less for my perspective either. However, again, nobody has asked me what I think the Bible says.I am not even trying to get into that yet, until you are all able to see clearly that this is a proved theory, which has been endlessly corroborated beyond your wildest imaginations by all the evidences, geological, biological, biochemical, anthropological, and not contradicted by anything at all.For you to contrast your perspective as being Biblically based, with mine being based on traditions from man, all while avoiding my question as to how vegetation could be created a thousand years before sunlight, is simply not respectful in the least. It's droll, perhaps, that you should tiptoe around it with such acrobatics. However, I have various lexicons, and I am not an idiot. As I said, your understanding of Hebrew if very limited indeed.I believe Genesis is being mangled by you to fit in with what you would like to believe. I don't believe you are being honest to the text, or the language. However, I'll be fair here, as much as I can. I will go ahead and accept that your proposition is perhaps feasible. I'll go ahead and pretend there are no theological problems with what you are saying at all. I won't correct the linguistic errors, I won't even share with you what I think about Genesis, I'll leave all of that aside, and give you time to defend your position fully, so that I might hear you out. Now, explain how in the world you think evolution is by any means not proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Christina]

Intersting sense I use strong concordance accepted by most everyone except you I guess A new theory? I suggest you do a study on the Gap theroy and the three world ages because you choose to listen to men and not do your home work dont put your short comings of on me.My interpitation is accepted by main line christians at least the ones with eyes to see. I stand by the scripture so unless you have something besides your mens opinions to talk about believe what ever man you likeArticle:The widely held view among gap theorists today is that the original creation of the world by God, as recorded in Genesis 1:1, took place billions of years ago. The creation was despoiled because of Satan’s rebellion against God, resulting in his being cast from heaven with his followers. A cataclysm occurred at the time of Satan’s overthrow, and is said to have left the Earth in darkness (the “waste and void” of Genesis 1:2). [NOTE: It is alleged by some Gap theorists that the cataclysm occurring at Satan’s overthrow terminated the geologic ages, after which God “re-created.” It is alleged by others that the cataclysm occurred first, and then was followed by the geologic ages, after which God “re-created.”] The world as God had created it, with all its inhabitants, was destroyed, which, it is claimed, accounts for the myriad fossils present in the Earth. Many holding to this theory place the fossils of dinosaurs, so-called “ape-men,” and other extinct forms of life in this gap. Then, God “re-created” the Earth in six literal days. By way of summary, then, the “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 contains the story of an original creation, a judgment, and ruination, while the verses in Genesis 1:3 through the remainder of the chapter record the story of the Earth’s re-creation. Is the Gap Theory Popular? The Gap Theory has had, and continues to have, numerous supporters. George H. Pember, in Earth’s Earliest Ages (1876), advocated the Gap Theory. Harry Rimmer, in Modern Science and the Genesis Record (1937), helped popularize the theory. The renowned Canadian anthropologist, Arthur C. Custance, produced Without Form and Void (1970), which many consider the ablest defense of the Gap Theory ever put into print. George DeHoff advocated the theory in Why We Believe the Bible (1944). J.D. Thomas, former chairman of the Bible Department at Abilene Christian University, has stated that “no man can prove that it is not true, at least in part” (1961, p. 54).Now if understand the whole of the Word and 2 peter you could see this easily

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25644)
Intersting sense I use strong concordance accepted by most everyone except you I guess A new theory? I suggest you do a study on the Gap theroy and the three world ages because you choose to listen to men and not do your home work dont put your short comings of on me.My interpitation is accepted by main line christians at least the ones with eyes to see. I stand by the scripture so unless you have something besides your mens opinions to talk about believe what ever man you like
Dear Kriss,With all due respect, I can't agree with this common statement you and others seem to make, which goes something like this; "if you refuse to see that I'm obviously right, then believe whatever you want."Do you not see this as escapism? Have you answered to my evidences at all?Also, you say that it is accepted by mainline Christians.. at least the ones with eyes to see.. So basically, it's accepted by those Christians who you think are mainline {obviously you don't think the Catholics are mainline, even though I think any honest person would disagree with you, but I'll let that slide}, but even within those "mainline" Christians, a group defined by you, you claim that only those "with eyes to see" agree with you... Is this not simply a fancy exclusivist way of saying that there are others who agree with you who are Christian, and you think they are normal Christians, and that this doctrine is by some measure normative among some group of Christians, "group" being as defined by you?I'm sorry, that's not very impressive.I've studied the earth ages, and I think you need to go ask a Jewish Rabbi what he has to say on the subject. I do Trust Strong's Concordance, I just believe you are mangling the scriptures using Strong's concordance, rather than using the Concordance as a tool to understanding the scriptures. I also suggested using a variety of Lexicons and cross referencing, to get a really full and not narrow Idea of what the words mean. Notice that no Scholar uses only one concordance, and very few Hebrew Scholars use Strong's as though it is the best.In any case, you haven't answered to any of my questions or challenges. I'm asking you to open your eyes and observe the evidences. If you choose to not allow yourself to see, then how can I be blamed for your blindness? In fact, if you choose to not allow yourself to examine what I have examined, and deal with it, and then debate with me in light of that, then how can we get anywhere at all?Once again I'd like to stress that nobody ever asked me what I think Genesis is all about. I would wager that your view would have gotten you called Anathema very quickly in many ages past, it not at least looked down upon.Please, either view my evidences and give me your honest unadulterated feedback, or simply choose the blindfold and be done with it. No more tiptoeing around, let's face the facts.In Hope,~Tyrel

 

[Christina]

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others." The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does. With all due respect to fully understand this we needed the new testament and 2 Peter among others And sense it was a Mystery (hidden thing) imparted to christians not Jews sense they do not reconize Christ or the new testament You take the Jewish word for it I understand knowledge has been increased and hid things are now made known.So lets see you have Jewstheroys of menand men say on your side so far impressive....... NOT!!!

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25649)
Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others." The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does. With all due respect to fully understand this we needed the new testament and 2 Peter among others And sense it was a Mystery (hidden thing) imparted to christians not Jews sense they do not reconize Christ or the new testament You take the Jewish word for it I understand knowledge has been increased and hid things are now made known.So lets see you have Jewstheroys of menand men say on your side so far impressive....... NOT!!!
For the final time, dear Kriss, nobody has asked me about theology as of yet. I believe a proper understanding of the Bible is on my side.However, you claim that taking the Jewish word for it is invalid, due to the fact that they don't accept Christ... What Jewish Scholars? Did I say I was taking from Rabbi's who weren't Christian? When I said Hebrew Scholars, did you think I meant only orthodox Jews?Please.I feel tempted to leave the discussion as is. I believe people will see clearly who is using reason and evidence, and who is deciding not to observe the evidence. This is not directed solely towards you, but is directed towards all who have given up on the search for Truth using reason, observing evidences, and so on and so forth.All that said, I still appreciate how both yourself and Superjag seem much more approachable now. I almost want to ask what happened while I was away, but I don't even care to know. I would just like to thank you for being at least more reasonable than I have experienced in the past.In Hope,~Tyrel

 

[Christina]

Fine with me and you are reading more into my words than I said I said this mystery was not made known until the new testament I think our Jewish brothers and sisters have much knowledge but they could not have known what God had not showed them. And they have been under a slumber during the age of the gentile. You know I like you BT but I certainly hope you are cute cause your not to bright sometimes (kidding here) I gotta go

 

[Jordan]

(kriss;25652)
Fine with me and you are reading more into my words than I said I said this mystery was not made known until the new testament I think our Jewish brothers and sisters have much knowledge but they could not have known what God had not showed them. And they have been under a slumber during the age of the gentile. You know I like you BT but I certainly hope you are cute cause your not to bright sometimes (kidding here) I gotta go
This is getting way too funny, yet so true in a spiritual sense. Anyway...Dear Biblical Tetragramaton, I'll pray for you to the Lord to deliever you out of darkness...to deliver you. Right now, you are living in a box.JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.

 

[Dei-Gnostica]

(kriss;25649)
Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others." The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does. With all due respect to fully understand this we needed the new testament and 2 Peter among others And sense it was a Mystery (hidden thing) imparted to christians not Jews sense they do not reconize Christ or the new testament You take the Jewish word for it I understand knowledge has been increased and hid things are now made known.So lets see you have Jewstheroys of menand men say on your side so far impressive....... NOT!!!
Don't confuse the Word of God with the Action of God.The Word of God unto us is for us to think and explore this Universe for ourselves. The Actions of God are many fold. One such Action is Evolution. Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically.

 

[Wakka]

(Biblical Tetragramaton;25650)
For the final time, dear Kriss, nobody has asked me about theology as of yet. I believe a proper understanding of the Bible is on my side.However, you claim that taking the Jewish word for it is invalid, due to the fact that they don't accept Christ... What Jewish Scholars? Did I say I was taking from Rabbi's who weren't Christian? When I said Hebrew Scholars, did you think I meant only orthodox Jews?Please.I feel tempted to leave the discussion as is. I believe people will see clearly who is using reason and evidence, and who is deciding not to observe the evidence. This is not directed solely towards you, but is directed towards all who have given up on the search for Truth using reason, observing evidences, and so on and so forth.All that said, I still appreciate how both yourself and Superjag seem much more approachable now. I almost want to ask what happened while I was away, but I don't even care to know. I would just like to thank you for being at least more reasonable than I have experienced in the past.In Hope,~Tyrel
Could you be so kind as to tell me your education and your career. Just want to know. Thanks

.

 

[Lunar]

(Wakka;25677)
Could you be so kind as to tell me your education and your career. Just want to know. Thanks

.
What would that have to do with anything? Please, if we're going to be honest with each other in this discussion, let's have our arguments stand or fall on their own grounds, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks (as has been so frequently the case during this thread).

 

[Christina]

(Dei-Gnostica;25669)
Don't confuse the Word of God with the Action of God.The Word of God unto us is for us to think and explore this Universe for ourselves. The Actions of God are many fold. One such Action is Evolution. Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically.
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never proven

 

[Christina]

I repeat: This same old argument always comes up why is this because men refuse to see the truth that God laid out in his Word they insist on denying the word and coming up with one mans explanation after another. God has fore told us all things to bad men wont listen because they insist men are right.2 Peter will tell anyone with eyes to see that there were 3 world ages one is past the 1st earth age Dinosaurs lived and walked upon the earth as did all other creaturesGod destroyed the age and reformed the earth thus we have fossils and the such that are millions of years old. 2nd World age is now Gen 1:3 creation week each day in the creation week was 1000 human years long (2nd peter) there fore on the 7000th day(7th day) God rested 6000 years have passed sense No human bones have ever been found older than 8000 years old only apes because they were apes, No missing link because evolution never happenedThe first earth age was destroyed thus we still have fossils the earth BECAME voidThis earth age has always been deemed to be destroyed by fire (melting of the rudiments,elements)Then there was a new heaven and a new earth the 3rd world to come when Christ returnsNow there is a law of nature called survival of the fittest that does exist and minor changes in species have occurred because of this law, But no fish ever turned into birds no apes ever turned into men Evolution is a theory invented by men because they refuse to understand Gods Word about a 1st earth age and 1000 years to God is but 1 day to manThat is the entire Biblical truth and if men would listen this argument would be over.Science and the Bible are in agreement but men will find reasons to argue no matter what Gods word says2 Peter 3:5 But it is hid from them willing this thing, that heavens were before, and the earth of water was standing by water, by God's word [that heavens were first, and the earth of water and by water being, or standing, together by God's word]; 6 by which [things] that same world cleansed, then by water perished. 7 But the heavens that now be, and the earth, be kept by the same word, and be reserved to fire into the day of doom and perdition of wicked men. [Forsooth the heavens that now be, and the earth, by the same word put again, be kept to fire into the day of doom and perdition of unpious men.] 8 But, ye most dear, this one thing be not hid to you [be not unknown], that one day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years be as one day [and a thousand years as one day]. wycliff Bible

 

[Jordan]

(Kriss;25718)
(Dei-Gnostica;25669)
Don't confuse the Word of God with the Action of God.The Word of God unto us is for us to think and explore this Universe for ourselves.The Actions of God are many fold. One such Action is Evolution. Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically.
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never provenKriss, I seem to hate the word THEORY, because the Greek word theo means God. So how can evolution be a THEORY, if it's not the work of God. We need a new word for the work of lies. It should be called ANTI-THEORY or anybody has a new word for it?JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour.

 

[Tyrel]

(Lunar;25691)
What would that have to do with anything? Please, if we're going to be honest with each other in this discussion, let's have our arguments stand or fall on their own grounds, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks (as has been so frequently the case during this thread).
Thank you kindly.Wakka, though Lunar is absolutely correct, I can repeat what I have shared before. I am a Cegep Student.. something you might not know about if you don't live in Quebec, as there is no equivalent anywhere else. However, you can consider me on my way to University, in Theology.I've given you now my background in faith, and background in education, at least a little bit.However, Lunar is correct. It doesn't matter if you're Michael Behe, or if you're actually a bum off of the streets. Your arguments are what are supposed to stand or fall on their own. Once again, thanks Lunar.

 

[Lunar]

(kriss;25718)
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never proven
This demonstrates a misunderstanding about the scientific usage of the word "theory." That something is a scientific theory does not imply that it has no facts to back it up. A scientific theory is simply a falsifiable model that is capable of being tested through observation. Because of this, fact and theory aren't mutually exclusive. Here, I just dropped my pencil on the floor - that's a fact. And theories about the way that gravity functions can explain this (though hopefully you're not willing to discard gravity as easily as you did evolution!) Similarly, we can observe instances of change among species that can be explained by, and in turn lend credibility to, the theory of evolution (viruses developing immunity to vaccines, for example).The use of theory as "conjecture," "speculation," or "unsubstantiated" is a commonplace use that does not reflect its use in modern science.

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25652)
Fine with me and you are reading more into my words than I said I said this mystery was not made known until the new testament I think our Jewish brothers and sisters have much knowledge but they could not have known what God had not showed them. And they have been under a slumber during the age of the gentile. You know I like you BT but I certainly hope you are cute cause your not to bright sometimes (kidding here) I gotta go
Oh how kind.

{it's cool } I enjoy sarcasm.I understand what you are saying, and where you are coming from. To be honest with you, if I may, your position is one I used to hold myself. I simply came to a point where I thought it was truly inadequate. However, I might simply say in passing that I still don't agree. I need to give your posts proper attention and time and effort if I am to be honest though. I am, however, admittedly, a little put out because nobody seems to wish to do the same for me.Ok, I'll go through your posts more carefully so as to fully soak up what you are saying, and then give you feedback. Until then, I won't bother you about not having looked as anything I have brought up. I'll accept that at least, and I'll look over what you said in the hopes that the favor might be returned.I will have time next week. I'll look up all the words, and go through all the posts in this thread.In Hope,~Tyrel

 

[Tyrel]

(Lunar;25723)
This demonstrates a misunderstanding about the scientific usage of the word "theory." That something is a scientific theory does not imply that it has no facts to back it up. A scientific theory is simply a falsifiable model that is capable of being tested through observation. Because of this, fact and theory aren't mutually exclusive. Here, I just dropped my pencil on the floor - that's a fact. And theories about the way that gravity functions can explain this (though hopefully you're not willing to discard gravity as easily as you did evolution!) Similarly, we can observe instances of change among species that can be explained by, and in turn lend credibility to, the theory of evolution (viruses developing immunity to vaccines, for example).The use of theory as "conjecture," "speculation," or "unsubstantiated" is a commonplace use that does not reflect its use in modern science.
Thank you. Some didn't seem to catch that when I said it... of course, people such as Superjag don't read my posts, as he thinks I'm the antichrist.

But it's important to emphasize that this misunderstanding is far too common place, and needs to be dealt with before any serious discussion about science {or scientific theory, or theories, such as evolution}.Ride on.

 

[Jordan]

(Biblical Tetragramaton;25725)
(Lunar;25723)
(Kriss;25718)
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never proven
This demonstrates a misunderstanding about the scientific usage of the word "theory." That something is a scientific theory does not imply that it has no facts to back it up. A scientific theory is simply a falsifiable model that is capable of being tested through observation. Because of this, fact and theory aren't mutually exclusive. Here, I just dropped my pencil on the floor - that's a fact. And theories about the way that gravity functions can explain this (though hopefully you're not willing to discard gravity as easily as you did evolution!) Similarly, we can observe instances of change among species that can be explained by, and in turn lend credibility to, the theory of evolution (viruses developing immunity to vaccines, for example).The use of theory as "conjecture," "speculation," or "unsubstantiated" is a commonplace use that does not reflect its use in modern science.Thank you. Some didn't seem to catch that when I said it... of course, people such as Superjag don't read my posts, as he thinks I'm the antichrist.

But it's important to emphasize that this misunderstanding is far too common place, and needs to be dealt with before any serious discussion about science {or scientific theory, or theories, such as evolution}.Ride on. First off, In orange words Biblical Tetragramaton, I do read your posts, so that's a downright lie.In Red words, Anybody who loves not the Word, and preaches men is difinately an antichrist. But hey, thine choice in thy life, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. You need to repent before it's too late.Jag

 

[Christina]

(Biblical Tetragramaton;25724)
Oh how kind.

{it's cool } I enjoy sarcasm.I understand what you are saying, and where you are coming from. To be honest with you, if I may, your position is one I used to hold myself. I simply came to a point where I thought it was truly inadequate. However, I might simply say in passing that I still don't agree. I need to give your posts proper attention and time and effort if I am to be honest though. I am, however, admittedly, a little put out because nobody seems to wish to do the same for me.Ok, I'll go through your posts more carefully so as to fully soak up what you are saying, and then give you feedback. Until then, I won't bother you about not having looked as anything I have brought up. I'll accept that at least, and I'll look over what you said in the hopes that the favor might be returned.I will have time next week. I'll look up all the words, and go through all the posts in this thread.In Hope,~Tyrel
I cant ask for more than that BT and believe it or not I do read your posts

 

[Lunar]

(thesuperjag;25731)
First off, In orange words Biblical Tetragramaton, I do read your posts, so that's a downright lie.In Red words, Anybody who loves not the Word, and preaches men is difinately an antichrist. But hey, thine choice in thy life, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. You need to repent before it's too late.Jag
thesuperjag:I think the point that BT has been trying to make is that he thinks that evolution is in perfect accordance with the Word of God. Of course, evolution was originally proposed by a man, but there are lots of ideas that were proposed by men that aren't found in the original Bible that are perfectly fine, right? The dichotomy between man and the Word of God seems to be a false one.So, it's sort of begging the question, in this particular debate, to simply paint one's opponent as adopting the "word of men." There are plenty of instances in which the word of men can be harmonious with the word of God (like when one formulates a sound argument based on the Bible, or when one says things that are true). The "word of men" that I think you fear are ideas that presented by men that have no consistency with Christian theology, and that's fine - certainly you don't want to adopt views that aren't consistent with your faith. But the very essence of the argument that BT is trying to make is whether evolution is one of those things, or whether it is consistent with the word of God.So simply claiming that one is founded in the word of God and the other in the words of men doesn't prove very much. It's a circular argument, and it seems pejorative to me.