Evolution

[Christina]

Thanks Jeff but I do not need all the outside links they are all just more theories, there has never been a missing link found because it doesn't exist, "fact". All their so called documentation is made up of guess and assumptions they have never stopped looking for a missing link and they will never find one.And yes, they do say all life began in the water and grew feet and or wings wrong again. Darwin was a religious man who suffered loss blamed God and went about proving the Bible wrong, so he saw what he wanted. Survival of the fittest cause's small changes over time but it is not evolution. Evolution is called a theory because that's what it is a theory. unproved only assumed and guessed at evidence. They didn't even believe in Dinosaurs till 150 years ago. So do they have the answers.. no!Gods word mentions Dinosaurs thousands of years before men accepted such thing existed. Gods Word tells me : The earth is very old Millions maybe Billions of years it doesn't say exactly only that it was before, is now, will be destroyed and made new again, this current earth age starts in Gen 1:3 with this earth age which ends at the End of Rev. when a new Heaven and earth is made.All fossils older than about 13,000 years are from the first earth age. This includes all dinosaursHumans in our present form of the species (flesh) did not exist in the first earth age, so any likeness to homo sapien was just that... a likeness of some other species, which is why Neanderthal man was just proven to have no human DNA. Now there may have been some species that physically resembled humans/apes that existed in the first earth age but a resemblance to a speices is not proof of Evolution. These first earth age creatures may even mimic some human type behaviors of living in groups and using tools ect. but so do many Ape spiecies today. Again to proof of evolution.The facts are the Bible and science can agree its only men who will not agree ..............................................................2 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. Do not think this is noahs flood the heavens were never destroyed in Noahs flood, and Noahs flood was never a secret. 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.] This is our current earth age 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]. And this is a Hebrew Idiom the Jews understood well if you do not understand Jewish custom and figures of speech(Idioms) you wont understand alot of scripture.. that is 1 Day =1000 years/1000years -1 dayWCB

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(jeffhughes;56699)
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.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.
I would absolutely agree with you but for one thing. Genesis 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1:8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.Day as you described it could absolutely mean what you said. However not in this case as we see in the Genesis narrative it specifically states that there were certain days God made certain things. The fact that the days are numbered means they were 7 literal days. Now if it said in the days of the beginning God created etc then yeah I could see it meaning a longer period of time but not here. (jeffhughes;56699)
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...
Absolutely I agree. Let me tell you what happened to me. When I was younger I always thought that God created the earth but that it was millions of years old (because of Jurassic park). Then when I left my denomination and came to Jesus I was reading about how young the earth was and started to believe it. Something always told me well what about the dinosaurs aren't they millions of years old. Or how about oil deposits they take milions of years to form. The points is that the young earth creationist interprets the creation story incorrectly and believes that old earth creationism is somehow a passage way into believing evolution. But the thing is that even the Bible hints at an old earth it doesn't say the age but we know it is old because of proof. Archaeological proof. So if there was an absolute proof that was undeniable then yes it would be common sense to change a persons way of thinking.On a side note, another reason I do not believe in evolution is because of the people that support it so much. Take Dawkins for example an atheist correct? He does not believe in Christ, God etc....1 John 2:22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.God says it plain and clear here Dawkins is a liar why should we believe him?Just a preemptive response to "believe the evidence not Dawkins" well let me ask this. Can people interpret evidence incorrectly much like people can interpret the Bible incorrectly?(jeffhughes;56699)
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.
This is a little silly example but the best I could think of.

There are many different types of wheels big ones, small ones, wider ones. All for different purposes much like animals. Every animal has its own purpose they come in all different shapes,sizes, colors etc. A reinvention of the wheel would be creating an animals without organs etc.(jeffhughes;56699)
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....
I will but it's late going to bed.

 

[treeoflife]

(jeffhughes;56712)
To you, the Bible doesn't support the theory of evolution
Correct. To me it doesn't. That's because God has given me the grace to trust in His Word above man's philosophies of how we came to be as we are. To me God's Word also doesn't support a great number of things confirmed by God's Word. Bottom line is the only reason anyone believes in the Theory of Evolution is because they trust man's philosophy over God's Word. No other alternative. We are willfully decieved. I believe God gives us oppertunity in our heart to know and believe the truth. The truth is found in His Word, and it certainly isn't the Theory of Evolution.I'm sorry, but if you believe the Theory of Evolution, you have believed a lie. Sincerely, I pray now that the Lord will correct you of it before the deception goes much further. If you continue to believe it, mark my words (by them we will be aquited, and by them we will be shown guilty), you will have much regret for the deception you believed and spread regarding the vain Theory of Evolution.

 

[treeoflife]

(kriss;56708)
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.
I'll simply say I disagree completely, the Earth is "young" according to both God's Word and science (which obviously reflects His Word), and I have no fear of contridiction in my conscience on that matter whatsoever.

I am glad though that we can agree the Theory of Evolution is a sham created from the vain imaginations of men and women.

 

[jeffhughes]

But we do know that Genesis is literal.

I don't see how the whole "after its kind" proves that Genesis is literal. It just proves that the person who wrote Genesis could see that dogs come from dogs. He wouldn't have lived to see major changes in the evolutionary lineage...

Don't forget the knowledge of the Word of God is what we need to survive... certainly not that lie of Evolution.

Sure, absolutely. Evolution is not knowledge needed to survive. But it is certainly a theory that has gained widespread support by scientists because of the evidence for it, the ability it has to correctly predict certain things, and its usefulness for expanding other areas of science. Much of modern medicine owes its work to the theory of evolution - the idea that bacteria shift and adapt to antibiotics certainly stems from it.

Thanks Jeff but I do not need all the outside links they are all just more theories,

Then you have willfully blinded yourself to any evidence that might show you the truth. You are like a judge who has only listened to the prosecution and doesn't allow the defence to speak. You might as well just believe whatever you want to believe, because you dismiss possible evidence without so much as a glance in its direction.

Think about it. If the truth is really true, then it will stand up against any evidence against it. It will show all evidence to the contrary to be false, and still remain. So what harm is there in looking at the actual evidence? If creationism is true, then you have nothing to lose. But that is your decision to make...

there has never been a missing link found because it doesn't exist, "fact". All their so called documentation is made up of guess and assumptions they have never stopped looking for a missing link and they will never find one.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you read this straight out of an Answers in Genesis pamphlet. Believe me, that's what I used to say all the time - just spouting it out like I was Ken Ham (the founder of AiG) in the flesh. But it is simply not true. Think about this for a second: If evolution is true, then we should see animals that show a transition of certain traits from one category to another. For example, to see a link between reptiles and birds, we should be able to find animals in a progression of traits like this (R for reptilian trait, B for bird trait):

Animal 1: R R R R R
Animal 2: R B R R R
Animal 3: R B R R B
Animal 4: R B B R B
Animal 5: B B B R B
Animal 6: B B B B B

Now the transition may not be this clean and precise, as we're dealing with whole populations of animals rather than individual ones, but still - you get the picture. If evolution is true, however, we should NOT see lizards with half a wing, or half a beak, etc. These, if they ever occurred, would be selected against, since half a wing offers no advantage. However, a non-fully-formed wing that still exists may well indeed offer an advantage. There's the difference between what a creationist calls a transitional fossil and what an evolutionist calls a transitional fossil. And we certainly have documented many transitional fossils. At any rate, I hope you click this link. Go ahead. Read it and then try to prove it wrong. Even if half of these ones that they list are wrong, they've still got the other half to point to.

And yes, they do say all life began in the water and grew feet and or wings wrong again.

Well okay, I was taking you literally, and evolutionists do not say fish turned into birds. They turned into amphibious creatures, to reptiles, and then to birds. Saying that evolution states that fish turned into birds is a misrepresentation, and makes it appear absurd or ridiculous. Therefore, it's really a straw man argument.

Darwin was a religious man who suffered loss blamed God and went about proving the Bible wrong, so he saw what he wanted.

At the very least, Darwin saw microevolution or adaptation, so you can't really say he "saw what he wanted." Most creationists will at least say that adaptation occurs, and it has certainly been documented, well, all over the place. Whatever his motives were, if he truly saw evidence, then he truly saw evidence. And of course, the theory of evolution does not rest on what one man sees or what one man believes - it was subjected to peer review like all other scientific theories, which tends to eliminate biases. And of course, in Darwin's day, scientists weren't evolutionists of course, so his theory certainly received much scorn and abuse. If it didn't have evidence in its favour, it certainly wouldn't have withstood the test of time.

Survival of the fittest cause's small changes over time but it is not evolution.
Evolution is called a theory because that's what it is a theory. unproved only assumed and guessed at evidence. They didn't even believe in Dinosaurs till 150 years ago. So do they have the answers.. no!

Again, what we laymen call a "theory" is not what scientists refer to as a "theory." A theory in scientific terms is a framework used to explain a set of phenomena. And, well, by your standards, gravity is "only a theory," and atomic theory is "only a theory." To say that is ridiculous.

And so what if they only found dinosaurs 150 years ago? Of course science doesn't have all the answers, because science progresses over time! If science had all the answers already, scientists would be out of a job. But science isn't intended to give all the answers - it's intended to find them out. Evolution is just one of these things that they have found out, like every other scientific discovery that you and I rely on every single day to live our lives.

Gods word mentions Dinosaurs thousands of years before men accepted such thing existed.

Chapter and verse please. I know you're going to point either to "behemoth" or "leviathan," but that is only reading into the text something that isn't there. It's just someone saying, "Well here's their description. It certainly sounds like a dinsosaur!" But that's ignoring the use of hyperbole and imagery in the Bible used to convey fantastic images to great to imagine. It's like someone hearing you call a friend of yours that eats a lot "a pig" and truly believing that you have a pig for a friend.

Gods Word tells me : The earth is very old Millions maybe Billions of years it doesn't say exactly only that it was before, is now, will be destroyed and made new again, this current earth age starts in Gen 1:3 with this earth age which ends at the End of Rev. when a new Heaven and earth is made.

So you admit that what the Bible tells you is unclear. Does it not then appear that you could very well fit the theory of evolution into an unclear, ambiguous account? If it only says that the earth "was before, is now, will be destroyed and made new again," then certainly evolution does not contradict any of those....

All fossils older than about 13,000 years are from the first earth age. This includes all dinosaurs

Sounds like a pretty big assumption with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Humans in our present form of the species (flesh) did not exist in the first earth age,
so any likeness to homo sapien was just that... a likeness of some other species, which is why Neanderthal man was just proven to have no human DNA.

I'd like to see where it was proven that Neanderthals had "no human DNA". Even monkeys share some of our DNA - I guess technically it isn't "human," but we share a large portion of our DNA with all living things, so how would Neanderthals have absolutely none of it?

Now there may have been some species that physically resembled humans/apes that existed in the first earth age but a resemblance to a speices is not proof of Evolution.

Nope. But a resemblance to a species that fits nicely into a transition between two species and is dated in between the two certainly provides some strong evidence for it.

These first earth age creatures may even mimic some human type behaviors of living in groups and using tools ect. but so do many Ape spiecies today. Again to proof of evolution.

How is it easier to believe that there were human-like creatures who had almost the same capacity as us, used tools, lived in groups, etc., and even are similar to ape species today, but that they were destroyed and therefore had absolutely no relation to us - rather than saying that if there are human-like creatures and ape-like creatures who were very similar to human capacity, that they, logically, are related to us? Your explanation is not an explanation at all. It's like seeing a female cat with a bunch of kittens, but concluding that since the kittens are smaller than the cat, they must not be related. I admit the analogy is not perfect, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

The facts are the Bible and science can agree its only men who will not agree

Science does not agree with your explanation. You're proposing a just-so story based on one hard-to-understand verse in Scripture.

I would absolutely agree with you but for one thing.

Genesis 1:5

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:8

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Day as you described it could absolutely mean what you said. However not in this case as we see in the Genesis narrative it specifically states that there were certain days God made certain things. The fact that the days are numbered means they were 7 literal days. Now if it said in the days of the beginning God created etc then yeah I could see it meaning a longer period of time but not here.

Well, the numbers establish a sequence. The fact that the days are numbered does not imply that they refer to 24-hour periods, but rather that each period follows the earlier periods. "First" doesn't refer to a period of time, but rather being the first in a sequence. Whether it's the first day, the first age, the first penguin, the first restaurant - it doesn't imply anything other than sequence. So I don't really see what you are trying to say.

Absolutely I agree. Let me tell you what happened to me. When I was younger I always thought that God created the earth but that it was millions of years old (because of Jurassic park). Then when I left my denomination and came to Jesus I was reading about how young the earth was and started to believe it. Something always told me well what about the dinosaurs aren't they millions of years old. Or how about oil deposits they take milions of years to form. The points is that the young earth creationist interprets the creation story incorrectly and believes that old earth creationism is somehow a passage way into believing evolution. But the thing is that even the Bible hints at an old earth it doesn't say the age but we know it is old because of proof. Archaeological proof. So if there was an absolute proof that was undeniable then yes it would be common sense to change a persons way of thinking.

I applaud you for your sensibility. I agree that the age of the earth does not imply evolution - they are two separate concepts. However, at the same time, something about the gap theory doesn't sit well with me. It seems to be too much of an explanation based on one very cryptic passage in the Bible. If you don't accept the gap theory, then I think the only explanation is evolution. Otherwise, the physical evidence we find just doesn't seem to make sense...

On a side note, another reason I do not believe in evolution is because of the people that support it so much. Take Dawkins for example an atheist correct? He does not believe in Christ, God etc....

The thing to remember, however, is that atheism implies evolution, but evolution does not imply atheism. The people that support it so much, yes, are generally atheists. But that's mostly because atheists - or rather, anti-theists like Dawkins - tend to be very vocal. But there are plenty of Christians who support evolution, and plenty of non-vocal atheists who support it as well. Ultimately, though, the conclusion for or against evolution does not come down to who supports it, but rather what evidence supports it. So I don't think we can dismiss it off-hand just because a lot of atheists support it.

God says it plain and clear here Dawkins is a liar why should we believe him?

But liars don't always lie. If Dawkins said the sky was blue, would you then not believe it? Of course not. You see the evidence for it, and so you believe it whether he says it or not. What he says makes no difference - it's the evidence that determines the truth of a scientific theory.

Just a preemptive response to "believe the evidence not Dawkins" well let me ask this. Can people interpret evidence incorrectly much like people can interpret the Bible incorrectly?

Yes. Absolutely yes. But the power of science, as I've stated before, comes from the process of peer review. If one scientist says, "Hey I've found something!" Then a bunch of other scientists take a look at it and first determine the procedural method he used, etc. If it passes that, it gets published in a journal, where more scientists read it, try to replicate it if possible, determine whether it fits the evidence they've found, etc. So even if the first scientist was biased to see something because he wanted to believe it (in other words, a misinterpretation), it will be examined by many other scientists with many other biases which tend to cancel each other out. I'm not trying to say that the process is perfect, but at the same time, I would also say that in many cases it's easier to misinterpret the Bible than it is to misinterpret physical evidence. Of course, it depends on what kind of evidence we're talking about, but there is no structure of peer review among theologians for one thing, and words in general tend to be more ambiguous than rocks or bones or atoms. At any rate, I will admit that, for sure, evidence can be interpreted incorrectly.

There are many different types of wheels big ones, small ones, wider ones. All for different purposes much like animals. Every animal has its own purpose they come in all different shapes,sizes, colors etc. A reinvention of the wheel would be creating an animals without organs etc.

I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, it's difficult to say just what constitutes "what God would create." If evolutionists point to the similarity of DNA, creationists say, "Well designers often reuse materials." If evolutionists point to structural similarities like legs, arms, eyes, etc., creationists say, "Well designers often reuse similar structures." In other words, that sort of evidence is ambiguous, because anything we see, "Well God made it that way." You can't dispute that, of course, unless you're God. What creationists get into trouble with, though, is when you start finding transitional fossils that are dated radioactively and fit into a nice little lineage structure, and then if they try to say "Well God made it like that," then you're essentially getting into an argument about whether God is trying to intentionally deceive us. One of the arguments for the age of the earth that I always found pretty persuasive was starlight. Did God create light on the way to make it appear that the earth is older than it is? Because that would make God deceptive. At any rate, I say this to try and say that evidence of "reinvention" versus "reuse" is somewhat ambiguous.

Correct. To me it doesn't. That's because God has given me the grace to trust in His Word above man's philosophies of how we came to be as we are.

But the Bible is always interpreted. Even the most simple passage is always interpreted. Is this supposed to be literal? Is it a metaphor? Is it a parable? Is it poetic or exaggerated? Many places in the Bible we do not take literally, not based on what the words actually say or because we don't really trust in it, but rather because we understand that words often mean different things based on context and based on intent. If Genesis is not intended to be taken literally, we are misinterpreting it - and whoever interprets it correctly is not doing so based on trust, but based on common sense as well as evidence. In the case of an ambiguous statement, we look for evidence to support one context over another. Since language is filled with images, exaggerations, euphemisms, etc., it is always interpreted, and the only way to determine the truth of what someone says is to look for the evidence to support it. I'm trying to think of an example, but nothing is coming to me, so I will leave it there and hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Bottom line is the only reason anyone believes in the Theory of Evolution is because they trust man's philosophy over God's Word. No other alternative.

Well I believe in evolution because of the evidence. And I believe that evolution can be reconciled with God's Word so that I don't have to "trust man's philosophy." When I see from the world around me that evolution is clear, then I believe in it. However, when I see from God's Word that He is in control, I believe that too. The two don't have to be at odds. I don't think that God would give us the understanding, the ability, and the drive to gain knowledge about our world if He didn't intend for us to use it. If evolution is true, we will find it based on the evidence within our world. And if some use that as justification to deny God, then so be it. I'm sure some may have used the knowledge that the earth revolved around the sun to deny God as well, but that doesn't make it false. It just means that we must be careful in determining what the evidence says. But the case for evolution, it seems, is pretty clear.

We are willfully decieved. I believe God gives us oppertunity in our heart to know and believe the truth. The truth is found in His Word, and it certainly isn't the Theory of Evolution.

I don't tend to find my scientific theories from the Bible. The Bible doesn't say anything about atoms, cells, other galaxies, black holes, supernova, computers, microchips, platinum, electricity, and a whole host of other things. But that doesn't prove them wrong. Is the Bible false because it doesn't mention these things? Of course not. Are any of these things wrong because the Bible doesn't mention them? Absolutely not.

I'm sorry, but if you believe the Theory of Evolution, you have believed a lie. Sincerely, I pray now that the Lord will correct you of it before the deception goes much further. If you continue to believe it, mark my words (by them we will be aquited, and by them we will be shown guilty), you will have much regret for the deception you believed and spread regarding the vain Theory of Evolution.

If I have believed a lie, then I will stand by the fact that at the very least, I examined the evidence. If I came to the wrong conclusion, then I will be no different than a judge who made the wrong ruling. We can say that he was wrong, but we cannot say that he is at fault as long as he truthfully, and with an open mind and heart, looked at all available evidence before reaching his conclusion. If I am wrong, I will be reassured that at least I took the time to examine it, instead of blindly believing what was most comfortable to me. So thank you, but disbelief in evolution is not a requirement for salvation, so at the most it is a simple error that will get cleared up for me in heaven.

I'll simply say I disagree completely, the Earth is "young" according to both God's Word and science (which obviously reflects His Word), and I have no fear of contridiction in my conscience on that matter whatsoever.

Again, I think you should at least take a look at the geological evidence before making the statement that science says the earth is young. Perhaps God's Word says it, but science surely does not.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Sure, absolutely. Evolution is not knowledge needed to survive. But it is certainly a theory that has gained widespread support by scientists because of the evidence for it, the ability it has to correctly predict certain things, and its usefulness for expanding other areas of science. Much of modern medicine owes its work to the theory of evolution - the idea that bacteria shift and adapt to antibiotics certainly stems from it.
So, is that's what's wrong with medical science?

Don't want to jump in on the evolution part, but I could not resist the medical science part. Just got thru many upper GI's and they said I had that fad disease "GERD"---- found an esophageal ulcer, hiatal hernia, then later they found polyps and were worried about cancer. They had a lot of "evidence" that there were several things wrong with me. (Just like scientists have evidence for evolution) Of course I tried the usual PPI acid reducers just to prove my point. Actually, I find the logic in medical thought opposite of mine. One needs MORE acid, not less. I felt worse on the medication. When I stood back and looked at the "evidence" myself, I came to the conclusion this was all viral related---- not from too much stomach acid. I weaned myself off the pills and actually eat hot stuff. I have no objective evidence of an ulcer, the polyps did not occur until AFTER I was on the PPI's and that was the sinister purpose of my taking them---- to prove a point to myself. I even PREDICTED to my sister-in-law (who drove me to the doctor's) this would happen.My conclusion: All that evidence was poppycock. I was ill with a long-standing disease of some sort and that can cause temporary abrasions, ulcers and soreness in the stomach.BTW folks, don't bother getting your cholesterol down, as the medical establishment is wrong that it causes heart disease. Same goes for salt. I actually classify Cholesterol on the same holy category as vitamins and minerals that the body needs.So, if medical science uses evolution as their guide, I can see why I became so disillusioned with them.

 

[treeoflife]

Again, I think you should at least take a look at the geological evidence before making the statement that science says the earth is young. Perhaps God's Word says it, but science surely does not.
I'm sorry you feel that way. We all stand by whatever evidence we choose to stand by. We will see it all someday though, as I'm sure you should know.I have looked at the evidence, and I have made my choice where I want to stand.

 

[tomwebster]

(jeffhughes;56729)
I don't see
These first few words are the truth. I didn't read the rest.

 

[Christina]

Jeff you seem to conveniently ignore the verses I gave you that are Gods words saying there were three World Ages , you can show me all the numbers you like But I repeat they are assumptions THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MISSING LINK FOUND no evidence of Evolution has ever been proved. They are guessing because there is no bridge between the world ages thats Gods Word 13,000 years of fossils is not a guess its what the scripture says . God never says the earth is young he says there were 3 world ages and the first age ended the Earh became void. Then came this age. It is this age that is young not the earth.2 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. Do not think this is noahs flood the heavens were never destroyed in Noahs flood, and Noahs flood was never a secret.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.] This is our current earth age 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]. And this is a Hebrew Idiom the Jews understood well if you do not understand Jewish custom and figures of speech(Idioms) you wont understand alot of scripture.. that is 1 Day =1000 years/1000years -1 dayWCBBut as I said religionists refuse to see Gods Words and insist that the earth is 6000 years old because men say NOT because God said he has reavealed a mystery saying otherwise for antone listening and Evolutionists think God doesnt say anything except what religionist claim.Im not interested in arguing this subject again I am simply pointing out that God Word does not support 1. a 6000 year old earth, It Only supports a 6000 year period between Adam and us.( the earth and earth age are not the same thing). 2. Gods Word does not support EvolutionThis is a mens argument God is perfectly clear you either see it or you donthttp://www.kjvbible.org/PS heres the latest on neanderthal manhttp://www.christianityboard.com/neanderth...nced-t7988.html

 

[jtartar]

(univac;56650)
Did God evolve creation in a period of time or simultaneously?
univac, Contrary to what many want you to believe Evolution is completely UNTRUE, and is a blasphemy to The Almighty God. Think what it means if evolution were true. It would mean that all the glory of the Magnificent Universe was produced by some unknowing and unfeeling chance. Today, Scientists know for certain that Abiogenesis is impossible. It never has happened and scientists cannot make it happen either by invivo or invitro. Science has tried to make many animals produce something different, to prove evolution. They have not been able too produce anything that even comes close to evolving to a higher form of life. Scientists have caused animals to change color, to be smaller or larger, to have longer wings. They have been able to introduce genes from both animals and plants into other animals and plants, but they cannot and will never cause something to evolve to a higher form of life. The changes produced within a Kind is called ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution. God put within all KINDS, both animal and plant a law called PRESTABOLISM, which means that everything will produce ONLY after it's Kind. Science knows this, but they have no other choice; they must believe evolution or they would be force to believe in a creator, which many have said to be UNTHINKABLE. Caqn you have any trust in people like that. True science, science that can be demonstrated, does not disagree with what the dBible says, PSEUDOSCIENCE does. Allow me please to just give a couple of things to ponder: If evolution were true, after millions of years of animals changing fron one KIND to a higher KIND, there would be not distinct Kinds today, any fossil found would be a mixture of the lower form and the higher. This is never the case!! When a fossil is unearthed, upon testing, it can be determined exactly what it was, always ONE Kind!!! Think of this: The most complex of all nonliving substances is snowflakes and crystals. Science has found that there is a wider gulf between the simplist living thing and the most complex nonliving thing than there is between the simplist living thing and man. What that means is; It is more likely for a scientist to enter his laboratory and find a full grown man in his petrie dish, just evolved from a single living cell, that for a crystal left in the laboratory, to change to a single living cell. Science knows it is impossible. Have you heard of the term IMPROBATION?? This means that some one has been found to have made up something and pretended that it had evolved, but were caught!!! This has happened many time when scientists, usually for prestigue, acclaim, or money, who has claimed he has found something that evolved. Have you ever heard the term HOMOPLASY??? This is a process of two corresponding parts of two living things evolving in parallel until they could be used. Can you imagine the male and female sex organs evolving in parallel until they could be used for procreation??? How could they live before being matured enough to procreate??? Not only is evolution blasphemous, but also preposterous!!! How can anyone have any trust or confidence in a person who claims that anyone who believes that God created all things, is just plain ignorant, when they themselves believe such rediculous things???

 

[jeffhughes]

So, is that's what's wrong with medical science?

Haha....apparently so

I know that your post was largely just kidding around, but I would just point out that medical science often operates on a trial-and-error basis. Kind of scary when you think about it, but the problem is that individuals are unique in some ways. They go on general principles, but no drug will always work the same for all people - we have different body chemistries, different immunities, etc. So I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate incident, but hey....that's why they call it medical "practice"

I'm sorry you feel that way. We all stand by whatever evidence we choose to stand by. We will see it all someday though, as I'm sure you should know.

I have looked at the evidence, and I have made my choice where I want to stand.

Very well then. I wish you the best. I understand that this issue is, thankfully, not an issue of salvation. The reason I have started getting uptight about the matter (now that I believe evolution is true) is because some try to make it into one.

These first few words are the truth. I didn't read the rest.

Then I will choose to ignore your reply.

Jeff you seem to conveniently ignore the verses I gave you that are Gods words saying there were three World Ages

I didn't ignore them, I just didn't quote them to save on space on my reply that was already long (since I'm replying to like ten gazillion people it seems). I have seen the arguments for the gap theory before, and as I mentioned, I find it a little strained to come up with a complex theory of multiple world ages based on one very hard-to-understand passage in the Bible. But ultimately, you have at least given a way to falsify the claim - if there, indeed, is a "bridge between the world ages" through the process of evolution, then the gap theory is false, or at least must be modified. So I propose that you look at some of the links regarding transitional fossils that I posted earlier, which show evidence of there, in fact, being transitional fossils.

you can show me all the numbers you like But I repeat they are assumptions THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MISSING LINK FOUND no evidence of Evolution has ever been proved. They are guessing because there is no bridge between the world ages thats Gods Word

I'm not entirely sure what numbers you are referring to, but again, take a look at the link that I posted. You can't say "there has never been a missing link found" until you've looked at the evidence for missing links. Perhaps they are guessing, and perhaps they haven't proven it, but how do you know until you've checked for yourself? I can't force you to go look at the evidence, but I'd ask you not to make foregone conclusions before examining possible evidence. Thank you.

13,000 years of fossils is not a guess its what the scripture says .
But as I said religionists refuse to see Gods Words and insist that the earth is 6000 years old because men say NOT because God said he has reavealed a mystery saying otherwise for antone listening and Evolutionists think God doesnt say anything except what religionist claim.

I didn't see anything about "13,000" in the verses you listed. But I would at least agree with you that the earth is not 6,000 years old. How do we know this? Because of the physical evidence. That's where the gap theory came out of, correct? An attempt to harmonize the physical evidence with the Word of God to reach some intelligible conclusion. So at the very least, the important thing to be examining in all of this is the evidence.

PS heres the latest on neanderthal man
http://www.christianityboard.com/neanderth...nced-t7988.html

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it says I need to either log in or make a payment in order to view the full article, and I don't feel like doing either. However, you said it was evidence showing that Neanderthal DNA was completely unlike our own, and yet in the summary that you gave of the article, it shows a quote saying specifically that Neanderthals are an "extinct human relative." The word relative would imply shared DNA, so from that limited basis, I would say it's not evidence of that, but rather that Neanderthals didn't interbreed with humans - two totally different things. But at any rate, without reading the full article, it's hard for me to really say that with accuracy.

univac,
Contrary to what many want you to believe Evolution is completely UNTRUE, and is a blasphemy to The Almighty God. Think what it means if evolution were true. It would mean that all the glory of the Magnificent Universe was produced by some unknowing and unfeeling chance.

1. That is not what evolution states whatsoever. Evolution states that species are derived from a common ancestor, and that species arise through change over time. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, nor does it deal with chance, but rather natural selection which is anything but chance, nor does it say anything about the existence of God.

2. Even if evolution is as you say, are you trying to imply that truth is dependent on its implications? In other words, because something leads to an unfavourable conclusion, therefore it can't be true? To give you an (odd) example of what I'm saying: If belief in gravity turned people into evil people that slaughtered babies, does that in any way change the truth value of gravity? We could argue about whether people should believe in gravity because of those consequences, but the fact remains that gravity is true, regardless of what it does to its believers. In the same way, even if evolution led to unfavourable conclusions, its truth is not dependent on that. Its truth is dependent, rather, on the evidence that supports or does not support it.

Today, Scientists know for certain that Abiogenesis is impossible.

False. Scientists have developed several theories of how abiogenesis could have occurred, and while there is debate over which one actually occurred, the fact is that they are plausible theories that can adequately explain the rise of life. They certainly, at the very least, do not say that it is "impossible."

It never has happened and scientists cannot make it happen either by invivo or invitro.

Just because scientists can't reproduce it, doesn't mean that it can't happen ever. Scientists also can't reproduce a tornado; does that mean that tornados can't happen? They can't do a lot of things, but they can deduce how things occur despite that.

Science has tried to make many animals produce something different, to prove evolution. They have not been able too produce anything that even comes close to evolving to a higher form of life.

It's important to note that a) "higher" is a vague term, and

evolution would not always produce "higher" life forms, only different ones. Whether or not something is "higher" is debatable, but when it's different, it's different. And of course, scientists have observed speciation, as well as produced new species of fruit flies, bacteria, etc. To produce a bird from a reptile, of course, takes millions of years according to the evolutionary model, but to produce a fruit fly that has reproductive isolation (meaning it can't reproduce with other, different species of fruit flies) takes much less time, since speciation itself is not as long a process, and fruit flies have a fairly quick reproductive cycle.

Scientists have caused animals to change color, to be smaller or larger, to have longer wings. They have been able to introduce genes from both animals and plants into other animals and plants, but they cannot and will never cause something to evolve to a higher form of life. The changes produced within a Kind is called ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.

That, of course, depends on how you define the word "kind." And scientists have observed what may be a possible "change in kind" (again, depending on how it's defined), where a human cancer cell evolved into an amoeba-like life form. And of course, our observations about evolution aren't only limited to what we can observe today. The fossil record, analysis of homologous features, and biogeography also give excellent glimpses back in time to provide evidence for evolution. Of course, you will immediately dispute that evidence by saying that fossils aren't proof of evolution and it's not real science, etc. etc. And in so doing, you will make a paleontologist somewhere in the world die a little inside. The evidence for evolution from the fossil record comes not from a few limited cases, but from an analysis of the overarching patterns to be found. For example, one mammal found fossilized in Precambrian rock (with no evidence of intrusive burial) would immediately discredit the entire theory of evolution. But we have never, ever, ever found a mammal in Precambrian rock. We only find very, very simple life forms. We see the complexity of life forms gradually become more complex over time, as we progress through the geological timeline. This is one evidence for evolution, among others.

God put within all KINDS, both animal and plant a law called PRESTABOLISM, which means that everything will produce ONLY after it's Kind.

That's a nifty word. Now prove what you've just said. Proof doesn't come from the ability to make up new words. It comes from evidence. We only see dogs come from other dogs today because we are only looking at tiny slice of the timeline today. The fossil record lets us look back in time, and it shows a much clearer picture of evolution - not "prestabolism."

Science knows this, but they have no other choice; they must believe evolution or they would be force to believe in a creator, which many have said to be UNTHINKABLE. Caqn you have any trust in people like that.

I am amazed that you can think that the whole of modern science, with scientists from all over the world, with differing religions, differing backgrounds, different biases and differing perspectives are all somehow, like some big conspiracy, trying to shut out the evidence for a creator who created the world in six days. That is almost as absurd as the whole moon-landing-never-happened conspiracy. Many have said it to be unthinkable, because as they look at the evidence, the theory of a literal, six-day creation simply goes out the window.

True science, science that can be demonstrated, does not disagree with what the dBible says, PSEUDOSCIENCE does.

Pseudoscience like ESP? And mind control? And astrology? And phrenology? Oh boy. You've got me there. Good thing that evolution can indeed be demonstrated, and good thing it offers predictions that can be tested...or else I might as well believe in "psi energy."

Allow me please to just give a couple of things to ponder: If evolution were true, after millions of years of animals changing fron one KIND to a higher KIND, there would be not distinct Kinds today, any fossil found would be a mixture of the lower form and the higher. This is never the case!! When a fossil is unearthed, upon testing, it can be determined exactly what it was, always ONE Kind!!!

Again, please define your terms. What exactly is a "kind," in your opinion? And let's see...so since we keep discovering more and more distinct species that differ from each other so much so that it begins to blur the lines between "reptiles" and "birds", "amphibians" and "reptiles", etc....how do you prove your point here? The evolution of whales is particularly well documented. How do "marine mammals with legs" fit into the distinct kinds picture?

Think of this: The most complex of all nonliving substances is snowflakes and crystals. Science has found that there is a wider gulf between the simplist living thing and the most complex nonliving thing than there is between the simplist living thing and man.

Your arguments are sounding more and more vague. But you're right - crystals are incredibly well-structured and well-ordered. And one popular theory of abiogenesis hypothesizes that early amino acids may have used the complex structure of crystals to form a sort of "backbone" that helped them organize themselves into a more complex structure. Cool, isn't it?

However, what most critics of abiogenesis love to point out is the complexity of the simplest cell. However, that is not what theories of abiogenesis say would have been the first "living" structure. All that really is necessary is a self-replicating molecule, and that can be as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides. Of course, you can make it even simpler than that and compose it of RNA, which is only a single helix structure rather than a double helix structure (which does exist, I'm not making it up. You have RNA inside you at this very moment). Once a self-replication method is in place, it is free to, well, replicate, and extra chains can be added on over time. From there, there are several other independent "additions" you can include before you get to a full-blown cell. So the process of going from nonliving includes several intermediate stages, like stairs up a staircase. It's not that amino acids suddenly called a meeting one day and said, "Hey, let's make a cell!"

What that means is; It is more likely for a scientist to enter his laboratory and find a full grown man in his petrie dish, just evolved from a single living cell, that for a crystal left in the laboratory, to change to a single living cell. Science knows it is impossible.

Ignoring this obvious strawman argument, let me just say that calculations of what is "more likely" are completely baseless with those sorts of conditions anyway. Not to mention that it completely fails to factor in the time involved. If evolutionists argued that people sprang up randomly from cells, then the argument would work. But they say that they evolved gradually, over millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of years. If you want to say that cells popping up from nonliving materials are less probable than that, using the same timescale, then go right ahead, but I don't know how you would really go about calculating the probability of it.

Have you heard of the term IMPROBATION?? This means that some one has been found to have made up something and pretended that it had evolved, but were caught!!! This has happened many time when scientists, usually for prestigue, acclaim, or money, who has claimed he has found something that evolved.

I haven't heard the term before, but okay. Luckily, the nice thing about peer review is that the people are, in fact caught, and generally caught very quickly. Of course scientists want prestige. But then the other scientists look at his work, and if it's not sound, they pull the alarm on it. The fact that there are still cases where people say things have evolved shows that the argument doesn't work. If scientists are actively looking out for unsound discoveries in order to stop them (as you've mentioned they have), then why are there still cases where scientists wholeheartedly agree that a certain specimen is a product of evolution? Of course, it's also reasonable to assume that since the creationist version of peer review is far weaker and less effective, the errors in creationist material tend to stick around much longer than any mainstream discovery. I think you've shot yourself in the foot with this one, my friend.

Have you ever heard the term HOMOPLASY??? This is a process of two corresponding parts of two living things evolving in parallel until they could be used. Can you imagine the male and female sex organs evolving in parallel until they could be used for procreation??? How could they live before being matured enough to procreate???

You're trying to say that organs are completely useless until they are fully formed, but this is not always the case. There are many intermediate forms stages of sexual reproduction, including hermaphrodites (like some worms), pollination (like flowers), etc. I mean, even bacteria have a form of somewhat "sexual" reproduction, where two bacteria are involved to produce a new cell that takes on the DNA of both. Bacteria! The thing is that the creatures are evolving along with the organs, and vice versa, so you can't say that the organs are completely useless. I'm not sure of the documentation on this, but I can easily think up off the top of my head one plausible way it could have happened. Hermaphrodites have both sex organs, but normally we see that they are not capable of self-reproducing. But this may not always have been the case - perhaps originally hermaphrodites grew both sex organs, but were asexual, meaning they self-reproduced. Over time there was a selective advantage toward those who reproduced with others (like greater resistance to disease, etc.), and so the other sex organ was gradually lost. Of course, as I said, that's just a possible explanation off the top of my head. I don't feel like looking up actual theories for its development right at the moment.

Not only is evolution blasphemous, but also preposterous!!!
How can anyone have any trust or confidence in a person who claims that anyone who believes that God created all things, is just plain ignorant, when they themselves believe such rediculous things???

You have, in my opinion, failed to show the ridiculous nature of evolution. Nor is the creation vs. evolution an either/or thing. Only a six-day creation vs. evolution is. But at any rate, congratulations - you have successfully regurgitated what every creationist always brings up, while failing entirely to prove your point. Evolutionists are aware of the arguments, but with more examination of the evidence, it is clear that they fail. What you choose to believe about God is wholly independent of that.

 

[Jordan]

No, but you fail to show us how Evolution fits in the bible, cause it doesn't... You either believe in God's Words or you don't... there is no record in Evolution in the bible. And the bible is clear as Water about these issue. God can't guess.

 

[Christina]

Quote:Originally Posted by kriss Jeff you seem to conveniently ignore the verses I gave you that are Gods words saying there were three World Ages I didn't ignore them, I just didn't quote them to save on space on my reply that was already long (since I'm replying to like ten gazillion people it seems). I have seen the arguments for the gap theory before, and as I mentioned, I find it a little strained to come up with a complex theory of multiple world ages based on one very hard-to-understand passage in the Bible. But ultimately, you have at least given a way to falsify the claim - if there, indeed, is a "bridge between the world ages" through the process of evolution, then the gap theory is false, or at least must be modified. So I propose that you look at some of the links regarding transitional fossils that I posted earlier, which show evidence of there, in fact, being transitional fossils.I have looked at the evidence followed it for years I repeat anything over about 13,000 years is from the first earth age And that is exactly what scripture says 2 Pter 3:8 this is not the gap theroy its direct scripture Gap theroy is a supporting theroy for these scriptures 2 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. Do not think this is noahs flood the heavens were never destroyed in Noahs flood, and Noahs flood was never a secret.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.] Quote:Originally Posted by kriss you can show me all the numbers you like But I repeat they are assumptions THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MISSING LINK FOUND no evidence of Evolution has ever been proved. They are guessing because there is no bridge between the world ages thats Gods Word I'm not entirely sure what numbers you are referring to, but again, take a look at the link that I posted. You can't say "there has never been a missing link found" until you've looked at the evidence for missing links. Perhaps they are guessing, and perhaps they haven't proven it, but how do you know until you've checked for yourself? I can't force you to go look at the evidence, but I'd ask you not to make foregone conclusions before examining possible evidence. Thank you.Again I have studied the subject its all assuptions finding a fact then speculating the next step and strung together as fact the only absoulute in science is that it will change.Quote:Originally Posted by kriss 13,000 years of fossils is not a guess its what the scripture says . But as I said religionist refuse to see Gods Words and insist that the earth is 6000 years old because men say NOT because God said he has revealed a mystery saying otherwise for anyone listening and Evolutionists think God doesnt say anything except what religionists claim. I didn't see anything about "13,000" in the verses you listed. But I would at least agree with you that the earth is not 6,000 years old. How do we know this? Because of the physical evidence. That's where the gap theory came out of, correct? An attempt to harmonize the physical evidence with the Word of God to reach some intelligible conclusion. So at the very least, the important thing to be examining in all of this is the evidence.Did you read the verse's I gave you ? 1 day =1000 years this is the hebrew Idiom the creation week was 7000 years long Think about it if the Sun and moon were not yet created on the 1st day how could the earh revolve around the sun?? There could be no 24 hour Day so the hebrews uses a figure of speech here 1 day+1000 years.Quote:Originally Posted by kriss PS heres the latest on neanderthal man[url="http://www.christianityboard.com/nea...ced-t7988.html]http://www.christianityboard.com/nea...ced-t7988.html[/url] Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it says I need to either log in or make a payment in order to view the full article, and I don't feel like doing either. However, you said it was evidence showing that Neanderthal DNA was completely unlike our own, and yet in the summary that you gave of the article, it shows a quote saying specifically that Neanderthals are an "extinct human relative." The word relative would imply shared DNA, so from that limited basis, I would say it's not evidence of that, but rather that Neanderthals didn't interbreed with humans - two totally different things. But at any rate, without reading the full article, it's hard for me to really say that with accuracy.Only because they are assuming its a human species it has no homo sapien (modern man) DNAthus the conclusion they did not interbreed Answers in Red

 

[jeffhughes]

(thesuperjag;56750)
No, but you fail to show us how Evolution fits in the bible, cause it doesn't... You either believe in God's Words or you don't... there is no record in Evolution in the bible. And the bible is clear as Water about these issue. God can't guess.
Unfortunately, the whole "you either believe in God's Words or you don't" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Certainly, we all are accepting that God's Word is truth. The question is how we interpret it, since sometimes it is not always clear..."as water," as you say. I would say the Genesis account is far from clear. In fact, its very distinct structure almost reminds me of a poetic device or a mnemonic for memory. But even the mere fact that there are different interpretations of the account suggests that it's not as clear as you are trying to make it seem.In terms of interpreting Scripture, oftentimes people will use the general rule, "It's literal unless the context implies otherwise." That means that stuff like parables, metaphors, etc. aren't taken literally. Jesus isn't really a door or a vine, and we understand that. But here, the entire account is under examination - so there really is no "context," so to speak. We understand parables and metaphors because we understand literary devices and illustrations. But it is not clear here whether the author intended the Genesis account to be literal, or rather a metaphorical explanation of God's power and His sovereignty. Certainly, some elements of the account seem very indicative of a children's story, like Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit. I don't mean to say that to offend people who take it literally, but I'm sure you can see how it could at least be a kids' story. You know, talking snake, very visual action of "taking the fruit" to represent sin, etc. It can be seen as a teaching mechanism - as not quite literal - without sacrificing the meaning behind it.At any rate, I don't think that evolution should be tossed aside merely because it doesn't appear to be explained in the Bible. Since lots of things were not explained in the Bible, we can't expect Hebrew writers thousands of years ago to understand things we are just beginning to understand today. It'd be impressive if the atomic theory was mentioned in the Bible, but this is not the case. God used ways that the writers could understand in order to reveal Himself, and we must keep that in mind. To me, if the evidence for evolution is strong enough, I do not see a problem with keeping the truth of the Bible and the truth of evolution. And I think the only good way to disprove evolution is through physical evidence. If that can be done (and I am trying to show here that it cannot), then fine. But I don't think that an off-hand statement about "well the Bible doesn't say it, therefore I don't believe it" is justified.(kriss;56751)
I have looked at the evidence followed it for years I repeat anything over about 13,000 years is from the first earth age And that is exactly what scripture says 2 Pter 3:8 this is not the gap theroy its direct scripture Gap theroy is a supporting theroy for these scriptures
Alright, so let's look at the verses then. Establishing the context, we can see that Peter is talking about false prophets, and encouraging the church to remember certain stories of old, and what the prophets and apostles have said. Then, in verse 3 he starts talking about scoffers who question where Jesus is and why He hasn't returned yet. As we get into verse five, we see that the stuff about the water, etc. is hidden from these scoffers - not hidden in general. So your talk about "Noah's flood was never a secret" does not hold, for it is only from these people that it is hidden.So in verse five, Peter is talking about the earth, which was standing out of the water and in the water - obviously, landmasses. No problem there. Then, in verse six, we see that this world was flooded, and the world "perished." Now, note that this does not say that the heavens were destroyed, only the "world." So it seems like this could very well be talking about Noah's flood. At least, nothing seems to contradict it so far.In verse seven, Peter then goes on to talk about the heavens and earth that are now, and that they are held in store for judgment. The rest goes on to talk about how Jesus is still to return, and that time is meaningless to God, so His promise still holds. However, backing up to talk about the heavens and earth, note that nowhere in it does he say that the heavens were destroyed. He talks about the heavens and earth of old, then he talks about the earth being destroyed by a flood, and then he talks about the heavens and earth of now. I don't see how this implies that there was somehow a second flood before Noah's flood that somehow wiped out God's prior creation, like He somehow made a mistake and had to start over. And what, once God made a mistake and erased it, He wasn't powerful enough to erase it completely, or what? Why wouldn't He just blow up the whole earth and start again? In Noah's flood He didn't do that because He wanted to preserve the animals and Noah and his family. But in this previous creation, He apparently didn't let anything survive. So why not just completely destroy everything and start again from scratch?But what sticks to me even more about this verse is that he is speaking as if the church already understands and knows these things. He is not teaching new doctrine, but reminding them of this flood incident in order to make an inference from it. I don't think that there is any reason to assume that the church Peter was writing to had any belief about a first flood or of a gap theory, since none is ever recorded in Scripture, with the sole possibility of this short passage. But Peter just sort of mentions this flood in passing, like it would be common knowledge to all who were reading it. It is not a focal point of what he is trying to say, nor is it an attempt to prove that this prior flood occurs. This seems to tell me that he can only be referring to Noah's flood, but that he's doing it in a highly poetic sort of way because he knows it is common knowledge to his readers. If he were really teaching some strange, bizarre new doctrine, he would have slowed down, put it in simpler terms, and walked them through an explanation of how we could know that there was a flood before Noah's flood.No, I don't think that the gap theory can be justified based on this verse. At best, it is highly ambiguous, and I have a hard time justifying an entirely new timeline of events, along with a previous creation event and an erasing of all that previous creation, based on three ambiguous verses. (kriss;56751)
Again I have studied the subject its all assuptions finding a fact then speculating the next step and strung together as fact the only absoulute in science is that it will change.
That's what all science does. You make an observation, you hypothesize about that observation, and then you see if the hypothesis stands up to testing. If you're wanting to throw out all of science, by all means go ahead, but you should probably throw out your computer, burn down your house, and go live in a forest if you want to get rid of all science has given you. You're right - science is guaranteed to change. And that's a big, huge plus! Would you rather be living in the Stone Age still, banging rocks together to try and start a fire? By all means, go ahead and do that. No, scientific progress has given us much, and to say that it's unreliable merely because it changes is ridiculous. We might as well just discredit everything you say, since I'm sure you've changed your mind at least once in your lifetime.(kriss;56751)
Did you read the verse's I gave you ? 1 day =1000 years this is the hebrew Idiom the creation week was 7000 years long Think about it if the Sun and moon were not yet created on the 1st day how could the earh revolve around the sun?? There could be no 24 hour Day so the hebrews uses a figure of speech here 1 day+1000 years.
Wait, so you're saying that the earth is 13,000 years old, so if it's in the Bible as you said it was, I should see it mention that the earth is 13 days old. But I don't see that. Saying one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day is not some sort of mathematical formula. It's just saying that time doesn't matter to God whatsoever. It's the same sort of expression as "Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to." In other words - "same thing, different name." Trying to use the 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day as some sort of mathematical formula is usless anyway. Ahem, let me demonstrate.Problem: How long is 1000 years?1000 years = ?well, from 2 Peter 3:8,1000 years = 1 day (eq. 1)1 day = 1000 years (eq. 2)Substitute equation 2 into equation 11000 years = 1000 yearsQ.E.D.Brilliant!(kriss;56751)
Only because they are assuming its a human species it has no homo sapien (modern man) DNAthus the conclusion they did not interbreed
But there is a big difference between genetic similarity and interbreeding. For example, you and I have very similar DNA. According to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation]Wikipedia[/url], humans have about 99.5% similarity in their genetic code. So between you and I, about 99.5% of our DNA is exactly the same. However, you and I (to my knowledge) have never interbreeded with each other. Thus, technically, while we don't "share" each other's DNA, we do have a lot of similarities in DNA.Now, while scientists may be saying that Neanderthals lived in small groups and thus did not interbreed with humans, I am positive that they do say that Neanderthals and humans have quite similar DNA. In fact, according to this study, they state about 99.5% similarity between Neanderthals and humans (near the bottom of the page, last paragraph). In fact, this study also states that if interbreeding occurred, then it did not occur "at any appreciable level." So in other words, it's agreeing with the study you linked to, but it still definitely states that Neanderthals and humans have very similar DNA. Therefore, while it might not have received "human DNA" (although really, such thing does not exist....DNA is DNA) through interbreeding, it does have high genetic similarity with humans. And, DNA tends to show a very nice progression of greater similarity to humans as we progress further to the ends of the evolutionary tree. This just provides another evidence for evolution.

 

[Jordan]

(jeffhughes;56759)
(thesuperjag;56750)
No, but you fail to show us how Evolution fits in the bible, cause it doesn't... You either believe in God's Words or you don't... there is no record in Evolution in the bible. And the bible is clear as Water about these issue. God can't guess.
Unfortunately, the whole "you either believe in God's Words or you don't" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Certainly, we all are accepting that God's Word is truth. The question is how we interpret it, since sometimes it is not always clear..."as water," as you say. I would say the Genesis account is far from clear. In fact, its very distinct structure almost reminds me of a poetic device or a mnemonic for memory. But even the mere fact that there are different interpretations of the account suggests that it's not as clear as you are trying to make it seem.In terms of interpreting Scripture, oftentimes people will use the general rule, "It's literal unless the context implies otherwise." That means that stuff like parables, metaphors, etc. aren't taken literally. Jesus isn't really a door or a vine, and we understand that. But here, the entire account is under examination - so there really is no "context," so to speak. We understand parables and metaphors because we understand literary devices and illustrations. But it is not clear here whether the author intended the Genesis account to be literal, or rather a metaphorical explanation of God's power and His sovereignty. Certainly, some elements of the account seem very indicative of a children's story, like Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit. I don't mean to say that to offend people who take it literally, but I'm sure you can see how it could at least be a kids' story. You know, talking snake, very visual action of "taking the fruit" to represent sin, etc. It can be seen as a teaching mechanism - as not quite literal - without sacrificing the meaning behind it.At any rate, I don't think that evolution should be tossed aside merely because it doesn't appear to be explained in the Bible. Since lots of things were not explained in the Bible, we can't expect Hebrew writers thousands of years ago to understand things we are just beginning to understand today. It'd be impressive if the atomic theory was mentioned in the Bible, but this is not the case. God used ways that the writers could understand in order to reveal Himself, and we must keep that in mind. To me, if the evidence for evolution is strong enough, I do not see a problem with keeping the truth of the Bible and the truth of evolution. And I think the only good way to disprove evolution is through physical evidence. If that can be done (and I am trying to show here that it cannot), then fine. But I don't think that an off-hand statement about "well the Bible doesn't say it, therefore I don't believe it" is justified.All of us? The way I been seening things in my spiritual eyes... It's clearly NOT true everybody is accepting God's Words as Truth. Why bring Christ's Words (ex. Door, Vine etc) into this conversation... While it's in the bible, that's a whole different topic. And don't talk about Adam and Eve eating a "literal fruit" off the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" as that too is a whole different topic. We are talking Creation vs Evolution.The words are in Dark Red is the reason why I can't trust Evolution... because its NOT in the bible.

 

[Christina]

As I said Im not interested in debating the topic I was only pointing out the scripture do not say we have a young earth ,they say this earth age is young there was an age before this and the earth and the HEAVENS perished. Then came the first day of this age and God said let there be light he was the light and he tells us 1 of Gods Days is 1000 years to man this is exactly what the Hebrew Idiom means. Not an unknown period of time not another word forever it literally means 1 day with God is 1000 years mens time. So the seven days were Gods days =1000 years to man the creation week was 7000 years to us 7 days to God and on the 7th day he rested. Now 6000 years have passed since the creation week 7000+6000= 13,000 approx. So you either search the scriptures for the truth or you believe men either way their is only one right answer. All science is not all wrong when it comes to the age of the earth the age of the solar system, how long it takes light to travel, Physics, Geology Paleontology, Archaeology, just to name of few. Which is what one has to believe to say there is a young earth. Which is what one has to believe to buy a young earth. That defies scripture and logic. However no where in scripture is evolution supported in fact you have to deny God Words to believe other wise. Evolution is based on a concept the earth and its life forms continued unabated for millions of years. The scripture does not support this. It clearly says it was destroyed heaven and earth made void nothing lived. Void is Void. until the first day of creation of this second earth age approx. 13,000 years ago. Gen1:3 All life began new with first day of creation in this age. All fossils bones older than that were not of this age but the first, and no man as created by God on the 6th day of creation made of clay existed in the first earth age. period Thats what the scripture teaches us Now believe Evolution if you choose, believe in a 6000 year old earth of you choose. But there is only one right answer. And my Bible tells me there was an age before that perished ...and undetermined amount of time passed ....the earth was void no life was left.... disproving Evolution with scripture..then Gen 1:3 God said let there be light He was the light his day as he tells us in the mystery revealed in 2 Peter 3:8 and Hebrew Idiom confirms ..that these were Gods Days 1 Day = 1000 human years. God created the earth as we know it in 7 of his days 7000 years to us. And then he rested.Believe what you like but do not say God didn't give you details, he did, men just do not see they are blinded by lies and delusions of other men. As you say this is not about our salvation I only bother to write this for the fact of recording what scripture says for those who want to study the subject themselves. Not for debate reasons there is nothing to debate Old earth... Young age....Creationism this is what the Bible teaches

 

[treeoflife]

The reason I have started getting uptight about the matter (now that I believe evolution is true) is because some try to make it into one.
Jeff, it may not be a matter of YOUR salvation... but if you believe it can't be a matter of someone else's salvation, you are wrong. It is a matter of salvation for others, and that comes straight from the mouth of Jesus.How so? Not believing the words of Moses, Jesus says, which is God's Word in fact, has a domino effect that Jesus understood and taught as I will point out. All things point to Jesus, and all things have been done PERFECTLY by God, so that we can know Jesus. If, however, you start taking out steps on the ladder, which God has built, then eventually it can't be climbed. Jesus explains this. If people do not believe Moses' words, they will not believe Jesus' Word, and they will not be saved.We know that salvation is in TRUSTING CHRIST for our salvation. We hear the Gospel, and we believe... we believe what Jesus said, did, and that He was the Son of God who did in fact die for our sins.

John 5:45-48Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?​

The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, including the first book, Genesis) are the writings of Moses, and the record that he kept as God gave Him inspiration and experience. Jesus says that if you believe Moses... you would believe me... for he wrote of me. But, if you BELIEVED NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YOU BELIEVE MY WORDS???Fact is, though *you* may be saved, and though it may not be a matter of salvation for *you*... if you teach the lie that is the Theory of Evolution to others, you are no doubt a part of the problem, and the deception that leads people away from Christ. And, you will in fact, by the confirmation of Jesus Words, be leading people away from God and into hell. That is the truth, and that is what will happen. If you convince people not to believe Moses words, how will they believe Jesus Words? Though it may not be an issue *for you* it will, in fact, be an issue for other people with whom you speak. That is the fact of that matter. You have traded the truth for a lie, and it has implications that you do not fathom... but I hope that you will.It may not be a matter of salvation *for you*, but it will no doubt lead to a matter of salvation for someone else... and there will be a price to pay in eternity for the choice you make to teach the lie that is the Theory of Evolution, and lead others down a path of destruction away from Jesus.

Matthew 18:5-7 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!​

 

[jeffhughes]

Then I expect you will be recanting the evil heresies of germ theory' date=' atomic theory, electricity, the theory of gravity, the theory or relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and hydraulics as well?Obviously, that line of thinking is nonsense. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific manual, and we all know that. The sooner people start believing it, the better. I mean, the Bible says that rabbits chew their cud (which they don't) and that bats are birds! But that's okay! We excuse those because we say that humans back then did not know, and so if God were communicating with them, He would use terms that they understood. But then we don't apply the same logic to the creation account. Certainly fossils were not even heard of back then, and much of the evolutionary timescale would have been completely foreign to humans back then. So if God gave them an account of the creation of the earth, wouldn't He use the same sort of thinking - something that they would understand and be able to relate to - in order to teach them the truth? The Bible, ultimately, is a manual for living and for theology, not for science. And we only need to take a look at bats to be able to know that. But saying that that verse in the Bible is wrong does not mean that the whole Bible falls - we simply reinterpret it according to our new understanding. I fail to see how the logic for evolution is any different - based on the evidence we have now, it is clear that a literal, 6-day creation did not occur. Therefore, we have to take another look at the creation account...

As I said Im not interested in debating the topic I was only pointing out the scripture do not say we have a young earth ,they say this earth age is young there was an age before this and the earth and the HEAVENS perished.

If you aren't interested in debating the topic, then why did you bring it up? Several times, in fact? You accused me of ignoring it. So I gave my reasonable explanation for it. And now you don't want to talk about it? Come on. Stop repeating yourself and take a look at what I've read, then tell me what you think of it. It's not that hard...

But this cannot be what the idiom means. How do you know this is what it means? Did you write it? Do you even know Hebrew? I'm saying that it clearly says that one of God's "days" is like a thousand years to us, but that a thousand of God's "years" is as one day to us. That doesn't work logically or mathematically, so the obvious intent is that he's saying that God doesn't operate on our time - that He is, in fact, outside of time. To say it's some sort of mathematical formula simply doesn't work, because you're ignoring the other half of what he says. You say that "1 day with God is 1000 years mens time." But we must remember that 1000 years of God's time is only one day. So in that 1000 man's years, there were 365,000 man's days, so therefore, during that 1000 man's years, God went through 365,000,000 years of His time? Well, okay. But then those years had 133,225,000,000 days in them, and 1 day with God is 1000 of man's years........we can go around and around in a circle like this, and nothing will ever come of it. The intent is obviously to say that time is meaningless to God, and that He does things when He pleases.

So you're saying that physics, geology, paleontology, and archaeology, among others, are all correct, but biology has somehow gotten it all wrong? However, you must also see that physics, geology, paleontology, and archaeology also support the theory of evolution. So why are you accepting some of what they say, and then arbitrarily rejecting other stuff? Evolution should be refuted based on the evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence supports it.

Evolution is based on a concept the earth and its life forms continued unabated for millions of years. The scripture does not support this. It clearly says it was destroyed heaven and earth made void nothing lived. Void is Void. until the first day of creation of this second earth age approx. 13,000 years ago. Gen1:3 All life began new with first day of creation in this age.

I wouldn't say that Scripture "clearly" supports this, and if you had taken the time to read what I said in my previous response, you would have seen that. Or at least come up with a counter-argument for it.

As you say this is not about our salvation I only bother to write this for the fact of recording what scripture says for those who want to study the subject themselves. Not for debate reasons there is nothing to debate

Apparently there is something to debate, which is why you are bringing it up in the first place, and which is why I don't agree with what you say. If two people don't agree, that means there is something to debate.

For the sake of brevity, I will just quote this portion here, but I'll refer to your whole post.The thing that I'm trying to say, though, is that I am not condoning throwing out Genesis or "not believing the words of Moses" in any way. As I brought up earlier, the Bible has many literal passages, and many metaphorical passages, and many poetic passages, etc. The trick is knowing which are which. Now, most of the time, this is fairly straight-forward. But just because I don't believe that Jesus is really a vine or a door or a gate, etc., that doesn't mean that I don't believe what He is saying - only that I don't believe that He is being literal. I believe that metaphorically speaking, Jesus really is a door. But literally, He is not.Similarly, believing that the account in Genesis is not literal is not the same as not believing it at all. I can believe the meaning behind it, without believing that it is speaking literally. And anyone who throws out Genesis because of evolution, or for any other reason for that matter, I would certainly say is doing themselves an injustice.

if you BELIEVED NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YOU BELIEVE MY WORDS???[/b]

Again, to reiterate, I certainly believe that Genesis is inspired and accurate. Just as I believe that Revelation is inspired and accurate, though I don't believe that in the last days, suddenly dragons will appear and start roaming the earth, etc. I can believe the meaning without believing the literal words.

Well, for one thing, you are already assuming that evolution is a deception and a lie. If this is not the case, then your argument is unfounded. If Genesis is meant to be taken metaphorically, then by your logic, those who teach it to be literal are the ones who are leading people astray. I believe that God has given us eyes, hands, and intellect in order to be able to see the world around us and come to an accurate knowledge of who God is - not that learning all about nature will save us, but that it will give us a more complete understanding about Him and how He operates. Now, if it turns out that when we observe nature, we find that evolution has indeed occurred (let's just assume this for a moment), then this will bring us into a more accurate understanding of God and how He functions on earth. It does not matter if this is uncomfortable knowledge, or if it contradicts what we previously thought we knew. If the evidence is indeed accurate, and if we have accurately examined it, then it is solid knowledge about God. I hope you agree with this statement. You may say that the evidence for evolution is not accurate, or that it has not been examined accurately, and that is fine - I will accept that, and am pleased to discuss that with you. But to say that examining the world around us to come to a greater knowledge of God is somehow less accurate or less worthy of a pursuit, I think is wrong.Now I know that you didn't say that, and I'm not accusing you of saying that - I'm trying to develop an argument here. The point that I am trying to make is that, as long as we accept that this earth was created by God somehow, then we can assume that by learning about the earth, we can learn about God. Sometimes, in our examination of the earth, there are things we find which conflict with our knowledge of Him or how He operates. For example, when Galileo proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, the Church actively opposed him for it because it conflicted with how they believed God operated - that we were in the center of the solar system because we were the center of God's attention. But eventually, the physical evidence won over, and the Church was forced to rethink what they believed about the nature of God.In the same way, if evolution can be proven based on physical evidence, it cannot be discounted based on the fact that "the Bible contradicts it." Physical evidence is physical evidence. Now, you can debate all you want about the nature of the evidence and how it has been interpreted, and that's perfectly fair game. But dismissing evidence out-of-hand because of conflict with the Bible, I don't think is fair. It has happened in the past that people have been wrong about the Bible, as I've shown, and it can happen again. It doesn't slight the Bible in any way, only our fallible human minds.(Sorry for going off on a tangent there, but I think it needed to be said.)

If believing in evolution causes someone to fall astray, it is only because creationists have set up such a stark dichotomy that people feel they must abandon their entire faith just to believe what the evidence states. If the evidence is true, then it is humans who have gone wrong - not the Bible, nor the evidence. But let me say, just for the record, that evolution and the notion of God's sovereignty can peacefully co-exist, despite what some creationists claim. It has been done by many Christians, and it is not any more logical to abandon the Bible based on evolution than it is to abandon evolution based on the Bible. So please, to anyone who may think that evolution is a matter of salvation - it is not.

Again, you are already condemning evolution as a lie before even examining it to be true. Truth about the world is found through physical evidence, since the world itself is physical. Genesis is still useful for finding out why God created the way He did.

 

[Jordan]

(jeffhughes;56775)
(thesuperjag;56761)
All of us? The way I been seening things in my spiritual eyes... It's clearly NOT true everybody is accepting God's Words as Truth.
If you are trying to imply that I do not believe that the Bible is truth, then you are sorely mistaken, and I take some offence to that statement. It is dangerous to say that somebody does not truly believe what they say they believe - because they have more knowledge of their beliefs than you do. You can contest the truth of their beliefs, but not the fact that they hold them. At any rate, if that is not what you were implying, then my apologies. That's just what it seemed like.About the statement you quoted, why don't you look around before making ridiculous statement? I am not denying you believing what you believe. I'm just pointing out a major flaw in your belief...it's not Christ's Words nor it is in God's Words.(jeffhughes;56775)
(thesuperjag;56761)
Why bring Christ's Words (ex. Door, Vine etc) into this conversation... While it's in the bible, that's a whole different topic. And don't talk about Adam and Eve eating a "literal fruit" off the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" as that too is a whole different topic. We are talking Creation vs Evolution.
I was bringing in the door, vine, etc. as an analogy. You know - making an inference by comparing a familiar statement with an unfamiliar statement....since we know that Jesus is not truly a door or a vine, though this is literally what He says, I was using it to compare to the story of Genesis, where we know what the author literally says, but not whether they mean it to be literal. As for Adam and Eve, that certainly is relevant. That, right there, is the "context" of the account. And to me, talking snakes and very clear physical acts of sin tend to show a metaphorical story. Therefore, if there is a context to the creation account, that is it. Although, I'd be happy to discuss and debate whether Adam and Eve is a historical account.No need to discuss Adam and Eve and "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" because their (Adam and Eve) sin is not exactly eating a literal fruit. Again, different subject.(jeffhughes;56775)
(thesuperjag;56761)
The words are in Dark Red is the reason why I can't trust Evolution... because its NOT in the bible.
Then I expect you will be recanting the evil heresies of germ theory, atomic theory, electricity, the theory of gravity, the theory or relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and hydraulics as well?Obviously, that line of thinking is nonsense. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific manual, and we all know that. The sooner people start believing it, the better. I mean, the Bible says that rabbits chew their cud (which they don't) and that bats are birds! But that's okay! We excuse those because we say that humans back then did not know, and so if God were communicating with them, He would use terms that they understood. But then we don't apply the same logic to the creation account. Certainly fossils were not even heard of back then, and much of the evolutionary timescale would have been completely foreign to humans back then. So if God gave them an account of the creation of the earth, wouldn't He use the same sort of thinking - something that they would understand and be able to relate to - in order to teach them the truth? The Bible, ultimately, is a manual for living and for theology, not for science. And we only need to take a look at bats to be able to know that. But saying that that verse in the Bible is wrong does not mean that the whole Bible falls - we simply reinterpret it according to our new understanding. I fail to see how the logic for evolution is any different - based on the evidence we have now, it is clear that a literal, 6-day creation did not occur. Therefore, we have to take another look at the creation account...Would you mind NOT bringing other unrelated topics? Some of those subject I have not heard of, but that's besides the point. The bible is God's Words... and God's Words are infallible. Another thing, back on the first quote of your previous posts...I really hope you aren't implying age gives you wisdom cause it doesn't. Even a child can be wiser than a parent.I Corinthians 8:1 - Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.Everybody has knowledge in something. If I have knowledge and no Wisdom, is not Faith without works is dead? (James 2:20) (Ref: James 2:14, James 2:17, James 2:26) For there is no wisdom cometh in men. Just foolish knowledge.

 

[jeffhughes]

(thesuperjag;56779)
About the statement you quoted, why don't you look around before making ridiculous statement? I am not denying you believing what you believe. I'm just pointing out a major flaw in your belief...it's not Christ's Words nor it is in God's Words.
My statement was not ridiculous. You seemed to be implying that I did not, in fact, believe that the Word of God was truth, and I was saying that we should not be arguing over what people say they believe or don't believe, but rather about whether those beliefs are true or false. That is all. If you were not directing your statement at me, then fine, my reply to it is not directed to you either...But as I am trying to point out, there are a lot of things that are not mentioned in God's Word that we still believe in. Hence, just because God didn't say something in the Bible, does not automatically make it false.(thesuperjag;56779)
No need to discuss Adam and Eve and "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" because their (Adam and Eve) sin is not exactly eating a literal fruit. Again, different subject.
Well, I was arguing for a more metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. I was pointing out that the very next part in the story appears, in some ways at least, to be metaphorical. But fine, I'll drop that subject.(thesuperjag;56779)
Would you mind NOT bringing other unrelated topics? Some of those subject I have not heard of, but that's besides the point. The bible is God's Words... and God's Words are infallible.
I'm not bringing them in for discussion, like they are up for debate. I am drawing comparisons here. The reason I talk about them is for the very reason that they are not up for debate. We believe in atoms and germs though these were never mentioned in the Bible, therefore, the sum total of all truth is not found in the pages of Scripture alone. What is in there is truth, yes, but on what is not mentioned in there, we must use other means to determine whether they are true. Such as physical evidence. We discovered the atom, and the electron, and other galaxies through physical evidence, and so we can do the same with evolution. Don't think that I am trying to talk about the truth of atoms and electrons, etc. I'm merely comparing these discoveries to the discovery of evolution. As a comparison. Do you need further information on what a comparison is?(thesuperjag;56779)
Another thing, back on the first quote of your previous posts...I really hope you aren't implying age gives you wisdom cause it doesn't. Even a child can be wiser than a parent.
Not at all. I am fairly young, just 20 years old, and so I would never assume that age gives wisdom, although age certainly gives experience, which is one aspect of wisdom. I respect those who are older than me, as well as those who are younger. I place great emphasis on the fact that I examine others' arguments, and what they say, rather than who they are. And of course, since I have no way of knowing how old anyone is on here anyways (or at least have not looked for a place where age is listed), this discussion is moot. How can I think I know more than you because I'm older than you, if I don't know how old you are?At any rate, thank you for not discounting my arguments because of my young age. Much appreciated