Evolution

[treeoflife]

Jeff,As I said, I know what the Theory of Evolution, what it teaches, and the arguemnts therein. You assume that I assume the Theory of Evolution is a deception because you assume that I don't know what it teaches. However, I make my stance based on what I know from God's Word, and what the Theory of Evolution teaches--what more do I need? This is where my conclusion that the THEORY OF Evolution (or assent over millions of years) is a deception comes from.If there is no convincing you, just know that there is for sure no convincing me. I went to college to major in biology, and I have gotten into plenty of arguments along the way. We all choose our path, and we all choose the "facts" we will accept and what we will take in faith.

 

[Christina]

The problem here Jeff is you trying to make a point that is void of Gods Word and directly contradicts scripture. In fact you have to deny the Word of God to believe what you do. You can protest that fact all you want. But this idea has no Biblical support .....and those are the facts. So regardless of what you say or proof you claim to have it is simply mens Word vs Gods. I have attempted to show you that science and the Bible are in agreement in many things. Old earth.ect. ......BUT NOT ON EVOLUTION. I was hoping you would be more concerned with learning how the Bible and science could agree to many things. So you could reconcile science and God without having to throw out one entirely But it seems you want to argue with the Bible or with any thing in the Bible that might explain science ..(not Evolution) and reconcile your beliefs. All in an attempt to hold on to your belief in Evolution regardless of what scripture says. I was attempting to show you that a young earth, and Evolution are both wrong arguments which is why this debate goes on because you can not win a wrong argument with another wrong argument.But you seem to care more about holding on to your argument than the answer God gives you. which is a combination of truth in science and the truth in the Word. God Word teaches an OLD EARTH it perished became void this fact alone disproves evolution...... as Evolution depends on a continuing uninterrupted period of time. So whether you admit it or nor Gods word rules out evolution in scripture. Old Earth - All life Perished it became void of life ( ruling out evolution)Young Age- God renewed the earth first day of creation (proving creation)New Age-God promises to repeat this with a New Heaven and New earthThese are Gods Words period. .you either reconcile your beliefs with Gods Word or you deny Gods Words you can not have it both ways

 

[jeffhughes]

Very well then - let's agree to disagree, I suppose. It's just that I know where I have come from. I was raised believing in creationism, and so when I got older and began to "examine" the evidence, I naturally went only to creationist materials to get my arguments. It took me several years to figure out that this, really, is not a full examination of the evidence. As I began to do that more, then I realized that what I had been told about the theory of evolution was a gross misrepresentation of it, and that it had much more evidence going for it than I was told as well. It has been my experience that other Christians often don't put much effort into thoroughly examining the evidence, as I originally did not either, and so you're right, I made some assumptions about you.If you can truly say that you've fully examined the issue, and you believe in a literal six-day creation, then great! I have no argument with you. I am fully pleased with anyone who takes a full analysis of the evidence, as long as they do so with an open mind - being willing to change their beliefs if they turn out to be inconsistent. If you can say that is you, then that is wonderful. If it is not you, then I can only point toward this link once again and hope that you will take a look at what it has to say - and it definitely has a lot to say

At any rate, I wish you all the best, and thanks for your discussion

Edit: That's not to say that I am not still interested in hearing what evidence you may have found to go against evolution. I am aware of quite a bit of it, being quite an ardent creationist who loved to spout off anti-evolution arguments, but there is always the chance that I have missed a very solid one. So please, if you have any evidence that contradicts evolution, by all means, I'd love to hear it!

In fact you have to deny the Word of God to believe what you do. You can protest that fact all you want. But this idea has no Biblical support .....and those are the facts.

Again, show me, and then we'll talk.

I was hoping you would be more concerned with learning how the Bible and science could agree to many things. So you could reconcile science and God without having to throw out one entirely

I do believe that the Bible and science can agree and do agree. I have been reconciling science and God. That is exactly the topic at hand - does evolution contradict God's Word or doesn't it? I believe that the two can be reconciled. You point to something about a flood and say it can't without even showing me a shred of evidence as to how that even relates to evolution.

But it seems you want to argue with the Bible or with any thing in the Bible that might explain science ..(not Evolution) and reconcile your beliefs. All in an attempt to hold on to your belief in Evolution regardless of what scripture says.

I am not trying to "hold on to my belief in Evolution regardless of what scripture says' date='" not am I trying to argue with the truth of the Bible. I'm saying that the two can be reconciled. If they cannot, then I have a very difficult personal choice to make, but so far I have not come across a decent argument that tells me that evolution cannot co-exist with the creation account in Genesis. Although I understand that this means that I cannot take that passage literally, that to me is not a problem, since there are other passages that we do not take entirely literally either, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Show me where I am wrong, and then we can talk.

I was attempting to show you that a young earth, and Evolution are both wrong arguments which is why this debate goes on because you can not win a wrong argument with another wrong argument.

I'm not disagreeing with you that a young earth is wrong. I am disagreeing with you that a) Scripture supports a gap theory, and that

evolution is wrong. Please address these issues so that we can actually have a meaningful discussion instead of both saying the same things over and over.

God Word teaches an OLD EARTH it perished became void this fact alone disproves evolution...... as Evolution depends on a continuing uninterrupted period of time. So whether you admit it or nor Gods word rules out evolution in scripture.

Again, please address my comments regarding the Scripture you are pointing to to justify these beliefs. I have no problem with an old earth, but I don't believe the Scripture talking about the earth perishing and becoming void is justified. So if you can't show that they are justified, in other words, providing a reason for believing in the gap theory, then evolution has not been ruled out as a plausible explanation.

These are Gods Words period.

God's Words are found in the Bible, not in what you make up.

you either reconcile your beliefs with Gods Word or you deny Gods Words you can not have it both ways

I believe that my beliefs are reconciled with God's Word. Therefore I don't need to change them unless somebody shows me that I am wrong. (Hint: This is where you come up with a counter-argument to what I said about 2 Peter 3....am I being clear enough or do I need to repeat myself seventeen more times?)

 

[Christina]

If you do not understand scripture you are blinded not trying to be insulting but if you keep saying God doesnt say what he says theres nothing else to say. II Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"Most Christians today, and all of the worldly people today are willingly placing their selves in ignorance on this matter of the creation. Old as it is spoken of here is very ancient, goes far back before the time of Noah and Adam, and even before the creation of the animal world and the earth age as we know it now. Peter is telling you that in the far past, there was a first earth age. Not a different world or planet, but the same planet [earth] existing in a time frame prior to as the earth exist today. The same world, but a different world age or time frame. II Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"That world age or cosmos that existed in that ancient time of the past, and everything that was a part of it was destroyed completely. All life on it was completely done away with. God destroyed it completelyThis verse disproves Evolution because everything all life was completley destroyed there for not allowing time for evolution as men say now if you want to deny scripture says what it says fine then you are one of the "willingly are ignorant" that Peter is talking about Theres not much more I can add God says what he says and it disproves your Evolution theroy.

 

[jeffhughes]

(kriss;56786)
If you do not understand scripture you are blinded not trying to be insulting but if you keep saying God doesnt say what he says theres nothing else to say.
Kriss, I am biting my tongue trying not to lash out on you in frustration. For some reason we are not communicating with each other properly, and I will refrain from passing judgment on who is at fault for that. However, while I thought I made it fairly clear that I was requesting for you to actually provide a counter-argument to what I had previously said, you still have not done so. I am not arguing about what the Bible actually says - that much is clear. Where we differ is whether it means what you say it means, and so repeating the verses over and over won't help that fact. In the interest of helping you out, I have quoted my argument against these verses referring to a gap-theory flood, as seen below. If you do not answer these, then we are both wasting our time trying to argue against each other, as we are not actually arguing, but rather repeating the same things over and over.I shouldn't have to say this, but I will. If you claim that the Bible supports a gap theory, you must prove it. You have made an attempt to do so, and so in response to that, I provided my counter-argument. If you would be so kind as to respond to my argument (quoted below), then we can make some progress. If you do not do so, then I will not respond to anything that you say beyond this point until you do. This is not an attempt to silence difference of opinion, but I am trying to get a dialogue going, and you seem unwilling to do so. Dialogue involves an exchange of ideas, and my comments regarding the verses remain unchallenged. I would appreciate hearing your point of view on the matter and why you believe that these counter-arguments are wrong. Thank you.
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.

 

[jeffhughes]

(thesuperjag;56787)
I'll take these a step further.I assure you that God did not create the world starting with sin, nor is the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Hi there,I'm just a little confused as to who you are referring to, since you quoted me quoting kriss, so I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to prove here. My understanding is that you are attempting to give proof against a gap theory, is that correct? If so, then I will not bother replying, since, well, I agree with you. If I'm mistaken, could you please clarify a little as to what you are trying to show? Thanks.

 

[Jordan]

(jeffhughes;56789)
(thesuperjag;56787)
I'll take these a step further.I assure you that God did not create the world starting with sin, nor is the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Hi there,I'm just a little confused as to who you are referring to, since you quoted me quoting kriss, so I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to prove here. My understanding is that you are attempting to give proof against a gap theory, is that correct? If so, then I will not bother replying, since, well, I agree with you. If I'm mistaken, could you please clarify a little as to what you are trying to show? Thanks.I always multi-quote. So I am quoting to you Jeff. I'm proving there is a time gap in the bible. And not for Evolution. My post is color-coded... so it should be easy to see.

 

[Jordan]

And even all that color coding post. You still can't see it. Is Noah flood hidden from us? No it's not. Why? Cause people saw it happen.

 

[jeffhughes]

(thesuperjag;56793)
And even all that color coding post. You still can't see it. Is Noah flood hidden from us? No it's not. Why? Cause people saw it happen.
As I mentioned previously, 2 Peter clearly is saying that the flood event is hidden from scoffers in that current age. Perhaps you wish to call yourself a scoffer, but I don't wish to be included in that category.Your color coding made it very pretty, but I am afraid it was just a fancy way to dress up some out-of-context verses to make your argument look better than it was. Perhaps if kriss actually responds to my counter-arguments to the 2 Peter verses, he may have something better. You are, of course, free to respond to them as well...

 

[Christina]

Sorry Jeff not trying to make you angry But we are a Christian Bible study site Evolution is not in the Bible You want to say it is, but its not, thats why you go to outside evidence. To us you are not using outside wittness to prove a scripture you using an outside wittness to disprove scripture and Gods teaching. That may not be your intent. But that is in essence what you are doing. We can not accept that.

 

[Jordan]

(jeffhughes;56794)
As I mentioned previously, 2 Peter clearly is saying that the flood event is hidden from scoffers in that current age. Perhaps you wish to call yourself a scoffer, but I don't wish to be included in that category.Your color coding made it very pretty, but I am afraid it was just a fancy way to dress up some out-of-context verses to make your argument look better than it was. Perhaps if kriss actually responds to my counter-arguments to the 2 Peter verses, he may have something better. You are, of course, free to respond to them as well...
I know this will come across as a pointless post, but I would like to remind Jeff that Christina is a female. (Double postive

)

 

[tomwebster]

I think you are all beating a dead horse.

 

[jeffhughes]

(kriss;56798)
Excellent post Jag full of all the wisdom and knowledge that one needs to understand this topic if one can not see it in Gods words what God is saying than God obviously doesn't intend yet for one to see it.
I've always been of the opinion that God's Word is there for us to read and glean information from, but apparently if God hides things from people by causing them to read verses in the context in which they are given, then I guess you're right. I guess He just doesn't want me to see it...(kriss;56798)
I can only suggest one takes each verse one at a time check it out very carefully check out the Hebrew Greek of key words. There is wisdom here.
Perhaps you could so enlighten me as to the meaning of some of these "Hebrew Greek" words and how these change the reading of the passage? Because to me, in English, it doesn't seem to suggest a prior age ended with a gigantic flood that destroyed everything.(kriss;56798)
I might suggest for those looking into a first earth age part of this thread one might start by asking themselves when Jer 4:25-27 occurred? think on this when was there NO Man, cities and Gods destruction of them ???
How about the destruction of Judah? The cities were abandoned, people were killed and taken off into exile, and cities were destroyed. Obviously he is using a bit of hyperbole, but what prophet didn't use hyperbole, especially when talking about the destruction of their own land? It makes no sense at all to turn Jeremiah's words into some flood event, when no water is even mentioned, nor is the context talking about some "land before time" type thing. He's talking about the destruction of Judah in the verses before, and he's talking about it in the verses after, so why would he start mourning over some dinosaurs and land animals, and supposedly some Neanderthals, in between those two? Why would he mourn about them at all? It doesn't make any sense...(kriss;56798)
Do not say Noahs flood obviously there was some men.
Took your advice. Didn't say it.(kriss;56809)
Sorry Jeff not trying to make you angry But we are a Christian Bible study site Evolution is not in the Bible You want to say it is, but its not, thats why you go to outside evidence.
I know it is not "in" the Bible, just as I've mentioned that many things are not "in" the Bible. You use a computer, which is not "in" the Bible. You, I assume, have heard and accept atomic theory, which states that you are made up of atoms. But that's not "in" the Bible either. Obviously, all Christians believe certain things that are not mentioned in the Bible. And why? Because outside evidence shows this to be true. We can show the presence of atoms, so we believe in atoms. This is not a hard concept to grasp.Now, since evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, it makes absolute sense to go to outside evidence in order to determine whether it's true or not - just like atomic theory. The proof or disproof of evolution does not come down to "well the Bible doesn't mention it," or you might as well deny the presence of atoms, germs, bacteria, and dinosaurs as well.(kriss;56809)
To us you are not using outside wittness to prove a scripture you using an outside wittness to disprove scripture and Gods teaching. That may not be your intent. But that is in essence what you are doing. We can not accept that.
I am not trying to use an outside witness to disprove scripture and God's teaching. I am trying to do quite the opposite, actually. I am trying to show that evolution, at the very least, does not contradict Scripture. But nobody even seems to counter my arguments. In fact, I told you that I wasn't even going to reply to your comments anymore unless you at least provided a counter-argument to what I said earlier, which you never did. So count this as me being generous (or forgetful, either one).(thesuperjag;56811)
I know this will come across as a pointless post, but I would like to remind Jeff that Christina is a female. (Double postive

)
Haha, whoops. Chris, Christina. It's hard to tell on the Internet. Please forgive my ignorance, kriss....tina.(tomwebster;56822)
I think you are all beating a dead horse.
Maybe so, but that's because everyone is discounting my arguments before I even type them out on the page. I don't mind arguing, and I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I appreciate it more when people have decent reasons for doing so. Or at least point out flaws in my reasoning besides "The Bible doesn't say it. The Bible doesn't say it. The Bible doesn't say it." repeated over and over and over...

 

[Jordan]

I'll try one more time, but this one's going to be shorter...Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Jeremiah 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.Genesis 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.So how you possibly say this is talking about Judah's destruction? (or Noah's Flood if that was on your thought?)

 

[jeffhughes]

(thesuperjag;56842)
*Sigh* The Truth of God is absurd unto men, but unto us is sweet. Look at the words in Jeremiah 4:22 and yes I read the whole chapter. God was getting ready to tell us of what happened in the past. In short He was going to tell us of a flashback. There was no human in that first destruction. It happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. If you can't believe in the past, how will you be able to believe in the future? There is nothing new under the sun. It fact it is old, very old. History repeats itself.
How does verse 22 imply a flashback? He's just saying that his children are kind of stupid and keep sinning. Not to mention that if you are saying that since it happened in the past, and since history repeats itself, then it will happen in the future, you are ignoring God's words to Noah that He would never again destroy all living things on earth. So therefore, by God's own words, it will not happen again.At any rate, if you have read the whole chapter of Jeremiah and still do not believe that it is talking about the destruction of Judah, you are completely and absolutely blind. You are ignoring the purpose of a prophet, you are ignoring the words of Jeremiah, and you are ignoring the words of God Himself. You are simply taking vague verses out of context in order to support what you want to believe. But context and the author's intent are critically important in the Bible, and to ignore these is to ignore the truth. I have nothing further to say to someone who clearly ignores what is plain on the page in front of them.>---------------------------------------

 

[tomwebster]

(jeffhughes;56837)
...Maybe so, but that's because everyone is discounting my arguments before I even type them ...
That is the most truthful statement you have made. I don't read any of your "Stuff."

 

[Christina]

Jeff you are wrong about the bible it teaches layer upon layer thats why Christ spoke in parables so that one without wisdom could read and not understand. You can have faith anbd belief but that is only the begining of knowlege. The more you read and study the more you learn, the more you learn the more wisdom God gives you. Thats just the way it works Knowing what the surface words and a general knowledge is called the milk, God says we need to progress to the meat you have demonstrated you have no clue how to rightly divide the word follow subject and object. For Example your Jer. 4 remark the book doesnt change subjects between verse 23 and 25. God is looking at the earth not Judah Your remark on 2 Peter that Peter is talking to scoffers, the verse is warning of scoffers,thats not the subject nor whom he is speaking to. Precept upon precept concept upon concept is how we are to build up our learning. You can not have milk understanding of the Word and insist you know the Bible and justify things like Evolution are there. You are a baby (milk drinker) in your studies.Nothing wrong with that we all start out as babes in the milk but you are debating people on this site that study scripture on many layers. Your reasoning and lack to even keep a subject straight make it futile to show you scripture as your level of Wisdom has not yet been risen to be able to understand what we are showing you. So Im done with this topic as you can not see meat when you are on milk, only God can raise one from milk to meat as you study and your wisdom grows. The bible is called the living word. It grows as your knowledge grows. No one can ever learn all its knowledge in a liftime of study. The more you learn the more there is to learn. Your scriptural understanding and knowledge are much like a the student correcting the teacher. Please understand Im not in anyway putting you down we have all been where you are but you must study to gleen Wisdom and meat. Hope you stick around and learn with us.

 

[treeoflife]

Jeff, I pray that the Lord will save you from this deception. It only leads to a dead end. You aren't alone, many are deceived by this vain philosophy and pseudo-science. I mean, the whole world simply takes it for granted as true. It's no wonder that a world (the world) who does not want anything to do with God, prefers a theory that easily removes Him from the equation all together... and makes the history (real history) He has performed throughout the years and given to us in the Bible, of no value.You need to think about why this theory of our origin, where we came from, is so very popular among unbelievers. Really, sincerely, think about that question. If you do, and if you seek God, you will not be an Evolutionist anymore. There are plenty of Biblically sound and scientific answers out there, and I'm not going to run through them all with you. The Lord will do that for you, if you seek Him, and if you are sincere in it.

 

[jeffhughes]

[quote name='tomwebster;56846]That is the most truthful statement you have made. I don't read any of your "Stuff."[/QUOTE]So you admit that you willfully blind yourself to possible evidence in order to keep yourself from seeing something that just might possibly change your mind? If you truly believe the truth' date=' then read my "stuff" and refute it. If you don't read it, I can only assume that you are trying to avoid the subject because you are afraid it might actually make sense.If it doesn't make sense, then show me how it does not. If it does, then you should believe me. Either way, there's no reason not to read what I've written.[QUOTE=kriss;56848']Jeff you are wrong about the bible it teaches layer upon layer thats why Christ spoke in parables so that one without wisdom could read and not understand.[/QUOTE]While I understand that, this is not intended to be a parable in any way. It is a prophecy of Judah's destruction, as clearly shown by the context of the chapter.[quote name='kriss;56848]You can have faith anbd belief [b]but that is only the begining of knowlege. The more you read and study the more you learn' date=' the more you learn the more wisdom God gives you. Thats just the way it works [/b'][/QUOTE]Thank you, and I shall continue to study God's Word. I hope you do the same.[quote name='kriss;56848]Knowing what the surface words and a general knowledge is called the milk' date=' God says we need to progress to the meat you have demonstrated you have no clue how to rightly divide the word follow subject and object. For Example your Jer. 4 remark the book doesnt change subjects between verse 23 and 25. God is looking at the earth not Judah[/QUOTE']So if Jeremiah doesn't change subjects, and in verses 1-22 he is talking about Judah, and in verses 26 to the end he is talking about Judah....doesn't it imply that verses 23-25 would be talking about Judah as well? In this context, God is looking at Judah. God is talking about Judah. Jeremiah is mourning about Judah, and warning them. Putting in some random thing about a flood thousands of years ago just doesn't fit. It doesn't even make sense within the context. And appealing to some "higher knowledge" that I don't have just ignores the problem.[quote name='kriss;56848]Your remark on 2 Peter that Peter is talking to scoffers' date=' the verse is warning of scoffers,thats not the subject nor whom he is speaking to. Precept upon precept concept upon concept is how we are to build up our learning.[/QUOTE']I didn't say he was talking to scoffers, I said he was talking about scoffers. This shows me you still have not read what I wrote, so I will go no further. READ AND RESPOND TO MY COUNTER-ARGUMENT. If you cannot, then it shows that you do not have an answer for them, and if my argument goes unchallenged, what reason do I have to change? If you are so enlightened, then please...enlighten me, oh great knower of all knowledge. It's simple. If you have a counter-argument to what I wrote earlier, then write it out. If it makes sense, then I will believe it. If not, I will let you know, and the dialogue can continue. But as for now, my argument stands unchallenged.[quote name='kriss;56848]You can not have milk understanding of the Word and insist you know the Bible and justify things like Evolution are there. You are a baby (milk drinker) in your studies.[/QUOTE]Thank you for the veiled biblical insult. If getting into the "meat" of Scripture involves taking verses out of context' date=' somehow I don't think it's truly meat.[QUOTE=kriss;56848']Nothing wrong with that we all start out as babes in the milk but you are debating people on this site that study scripture on many layers. Your reasoning and lack to even keep a subject straight make it futile to show you scripture as your level of Wisdom has not yet been risen to be able to understand what we are showing you. [/QUOTE]You have not shown me anything to which I should understand, except a handful of out-of-context verses. I feel like a skipping record, saying "out of context" over and over again.[quote name='kriss;56848]So Im done with this topic as you can not see meat when you are on milk' date=' only God can raise one from milk to meat as you study and your wisdom grows.[/QUOTE']That's right, just ignore the problem. Obviously I'm simply not "spiritual" enough, though the only way you justify that is because I don't agree with you. Who are you to judge my spirit, and where I am spiritually? Perhaps I am right on the "cusp" of moving from milk to meat, so that if you actually provide me with a solid argument, I could slip into the next stage of my spiritual journey and understand what you are saying. But so far, you have not provided me with a solid argument.It is futile it is to judge where someone is spiritually. The only hope we have is to provide solid arguments and reach a knowledgeable conclusion. As my arguments still stand untouched by you, you cannot even claim that you are "trying" to help me spiritually.[quote name='kriss;56848]The bible is called the living word. It grows as your knowledge grows. No one can ever learn all its knowledge in a liftime of study. The more you learn the more there is to learn. Your scriptural understanding and knowledge are much like a the student correcting the teacher.[/QUOTE]Thank you' date=' oh wise teacher. Shall I call you a guru, or is that too Buddhist for your taste? Perhaps you prefer something more Gnostic...[QUOTE=kriss;56848']Please understand Im not in anyway putting you down we have all been where you are but you must study to gleen Wisdom and meat. Hope you stick around and learn with us.[/QUOTE]I don't wish to learn from people who clearly take verses out of context, then don't even bother to answer the "students" who are trying to learn. You are not a teacher if you don't even answer my questions.[quote name='treeoflife;56855]Jeff' date=' I pray that the Lord will save you from this deception. It only leads to a dead end. You aren't alone, many are deceived by this vain philosophy and pseudo-science. I mean, the whole world simply takes it for granted as true. It's no wonder that a world (the world) who does not want anything to do with God, prefers a theory that easily removes Him from the equation all together... and makes the history (real history) He has performed throughout the years and given to us in the Bible, of no value.[/QUOTE']a) There are many Christians who accept the truth of evolution, and still remain very much godly Christians. So evolution does not remove Him from the equation, although some do use it to do so.

If solid arguments and evidence are "deception," then Satan has really stepped it up a notch. I was under the impression that he usually worked through temptation, and as I was certainly not tempted to believe evolution, but rather was actively opposed to it and searching for ways to disprove it, I don't see how this holds.c) Nobody has shown to me that this theory is "pseudo-science," as you call it. I'm still waiting on that.d) The whole world does not simply take it for granted as true. Can you imagine the world recognition that scientists would have if they somehow proved evolution false? Their careers would be launched forward, they would get grants beyond their wildest dreams, and their names would forever be etched in history. Scientists, if they could, would love to prove evolution false. However, it's proven itself true so many times that most of them have figured out that it's actually true - not just a convenient theory. So now they have reached consensus on the matter. This includes Christian scientists, scientists from other religions, and atheist scientists.[quote name='treeoflife;56855]You need to think about why this theory of our origin' date=' where we came from, is so very popular among unbelievers. Really, sincerely, think about that question. If you do, and if you seek God, you will not be an Evolutionist anymore. There are plenty of Biblically sound and scientific answers out there, and I'm not going to run through them all with you. The Lord will do that for you, if you seek Him, and if you are sincere in it.[/QUOTE']It is popular among unbelievers because it is true. It is not so popular among believers because it is true, yet they cling to their comfortable interpretation of Scripture that they've grown up with and happen to like very much. This is not what I want for myself. I want to believe truth, and if truth happens to be evolution, then so be it. When I set out to determine whether evolution was true or false, I told myself that above all, I would seek truth - and that I would accept truth no matter whether that was what I had always believed or whether it was something new. This is what open-mindedness is, and I aspired to be open-minded.If evolution is false, then you should be able to show me how it is false. Using physical evidence. "Why using physical evidence?" you may ask. Because physical evidence, properly gathered and analyzed, should never contradict truth. It cannot, or it would be a logical contradiction. Pointing to Scripture, as much as I believe it is truth, comes up with the problem that it sometimes, well, as kriss pointed out, "teaches layer upon layer." In other words, it's not always crystal clear - which I can prove by simply pointing out the sheer number of denominations in the Christian church. If the Bible were perfectly clear, there would be one denomination, as well as perhaps a few more people who just tried to start their own movement based on false interpretations. But there would not be thousands.If you want to say that Scripture alone can disprove evolution, then show me how the Genesis account absolutely cannot be taken metaphorically or semi-literally with a "day-age" interpretation. And if you do that, you can expect me to challenge it. That's okay. That is debate. That is discussion. It's what normal people do when faced with a disagreement. But if we are both intelligent people who both believe that God gives us wisdom, and if we are both committed to a search for truth, at the very least we should be able to shed some of these layers of disagreement. Perhaps we will not end up agreeing totally with each other. That's okay. But at the very least, more discussion will have taken place than what has taken place so far on the last seven pages. What has gone on is that I have been attacked with no justification given other than "You're wrong because the Bible says you're wrong." I'm asking for evidence behind those claims. And I'm asking for an alternative explanation for the physical evidence that supports evolution. If you cannot provide either of those, then you have no basis for claiming that you are right. And you cannot expect me to change my views based on "I'm right, you're wrong."So let me recap, to all of you who wish to continue the debate over evolution. There are two ways in which you may attempt to show that it is untrue:1) Showing how the Genesis account cannot be taken metaphorically or semi-literally (a "day-age" view).2) Showing how the physical evidence does not support evolution.Please refrain from making any other comments about how I am a) deceived,

spiritually weak, c) trying to deny the existence of God, d) sending people to hell, e) directly rebelling against God, or f) an idiot. While any or all of those may be true, I expect that you will show justification for any claims you make. If you have no justification, then don't say it.

 

[tomwebster]

(jeffhughes;56866)
...I can only assume that you are trying to avoid the subject because you are afraid it might actually make sense.....
I'm not AFRAID of anything, specially you. I don't have time to waist. You will find out soon enough.