I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

[UppsalaDragby]

So yeah....we're definitely done talking about this in any sort of scientific context.

Why? The fact that no no one has been able to observe life originating from non-life relates to science. The fact that no one has ever been able to test whether or not fossils are transitionsal relates to science. The fact that no one has ever observed any of the kinds mentioned in the Bible crossing over to any of the other kind mentioned in the Bible relates to science. And so on...

Do you apply that reasoning to the formation of mountains? Scripture clearly says that God creates mountains, yet we see "processes going on today" that also create mountains. Using the logic you are applying to scripture and the creation of species, you must therefore deny volcanism and plate tectonics. Anything else is hypocritical.

Does scripture say that God created mountains out of molehills?
Does scripture say that pre-flood topology was subject to plate tectonics?
Does scripture say that God created mountains on any particular creation day?

Just as I said, the fact that there are processes going on today does not mean that creation itself was not exclusively supernatural.

First, science doesn't say anything about the resurrection of Christ. Second, if we saw people resurrecting after being dead for 3 days, you would have a point.

How does that address the quoted comment?

Just as there's nothing in scripture about amphibians or bacteria. So I guess their existence is also a lie?

No, but both amphibians and bacteria can be observed whereas things such as common descent cannot.

All scripture requires interpretation. Even reading in the original ancient Hebrew is an interpretive art. Trying to say otherwise is just ridiculous. If you want a good demonstration of that fact, then explain how you reconcile a 100% literal reading of the two different creation accounts, without adding or assuming anything.

What, according to you is "100% literal"?

You say you believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Was that 100% literal?

I wondered how long it would be Before you played the "You'll see when you stand Before God" card. Took you longer than I thought.

Well, good from me then. :)

?????? I think you missed the point entirely. By using scripture as a means to rebut scientific research, you are putting scripture in a context it was not intended to be in. If the Genesis accounts were meant to be in that context, surely they would have made some mention of genetics.

I didn't miss any particular point here. Who told you there were contexts in which scripture should be ignored?

I never said that scripture should be used as a means of rebutting scientific research. I am pointing out that the theories that evolutionists advocate to do not agree with the Genesis account. If you prefer to subscribe to theories like that then it is your choice, but anything that cannot be observed, repeated and tested is not science but faith.

There ya' go. If a "clear reading of scripture" doesn't tell you what "kind" amphibians are, then we're left to try and figure it out for ourselves, aren't we?

Sure... we are left to figure it out.. Your point being?

When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.

If you were unsure about what I meant then why didn't you just ask me... instead of playing evasive games? If you want to have a serios discussion with me, then stop trying to bait me with silly questions all the time.

I'm in.

Good, thanks.

 

[Quantrill]

That may have been the case over half a century ago, but believe it or not science has progressed a bit since then.

Indeed. Which means you admit evolution is based on faith. And then scientists seek to find evidence for their faith. Which mens they will go to any means to make their findings fit what they believe.

And, evolution is still a faith. As you already admit. So, why are they teaching evolutionary faith in public schools?

Quantrill

 

[River Jordan]

Does scripture say that God created mountains out of molehills?
Does scripture say that pre-flood topology was subject to plate tectonics?
Does scripture say that God created mountains on any particular creation day?

Just as I said, the fact that there are processes going on today does not mean that creation itself was not exclusively supernatural.

And it doesn't mean that it was. So to figure out what happened, we have science.

Scripture says God created mountains, wind, and organisms....but it doesn't say how. Just as there's no mention of volcanism or temperature gradients, there's no mention of genetic engineering either. So we're left to our own abilities...science...to figure out the "how".

How does that address the quoted comment?

By pointing out that Christ's resurrection is a definitively and unquestionably supernatural event. But the creation of mountains, winds, and species are not.

What, according to you is "100% literal"?

You say you believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Was that 100% literal?

You're not addressing the issue. Please show how a literal reading of the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 is done with out adding or assuming anything.

Well, good from me then. :)

Nah, actually it's a sign of desperation.

I didn't miss any particular point here. Who told you there were contexts in which scripture should be ignored?

I never said that scripture should be used as a means of rebutting scientific research. I am pointing out that the theories that evolutionists advocate to do not agree with the Genesis account. If you prefer to subscribe to theories like that then it is your choice, but anything that cannot be observed, repeated and tested is not science but faith.

No, science doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Genesis accounts, just as science doesn't agree with the scriptural interpretations of geocentrists. But both of you are making the same mistake, i.e., trying to use scripture as a filter for evaluating scientific research.

Sure... we are left to figure it out.. Your point being?

And how do we figure such things out? By doing science.

If you were unsure about what I meant then why didn't you just ask me... instead of playing evasive games? If you want to have a serios discussion with me, then stop trying to bait me with silly questions all the time.

Wow. Every time I think this can't more bizarre, it gets cranked up to 11. Why didn't I just ask you? Seriously? I asked you no less than four times! And you know what's even more odd? You still haven't said what "sides" you studied, whether that includes science, and if so what from science you studied!

Wow.

Indeed. Which means you admit evolution is based on faith. And then scientists seek to find evidence for their faith. Which mens they will go to any means to make their findings fit what they believe.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense at all.

And, evolution is still a faith. As you already admit. So, why are they teaching evolutionary faith in public schools?

So who gets to decide what goes into science curricula? You? Ken Ham? Scientists and science teachers?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

And it doesn't mean that it was. So to figure out what happened, we have science.

No we don't have science to figure out what happened. You simply assume that we do. Science is based on observation. We have eyes in our heads to help us navigate in the physical world, but as far as being a tool to provide evidence of things "not seen" then you are a very deceived individual. Scripture says that faith is the evidence of things not seen:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Clearly, biblical faith is much more reliable than sight as a method of determining truth:

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7)

And believing what God says about origins is obviously central to faith:

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

That verse declares that understanding origins is based on FAITH, not SIGHT as evolutionists such as yourself are trying to decieve us to believe.

Scripture says God created mountains, wind, and organisms....but it doesn't say how. Just as there's no mention of volcanism or temperature gradients, there's no mention of genetic engineering either. So we're left to our own abilities...science...to figure out the "how".

I find it a ironic that you argue that scripture doesn't say HOW God created these things ... as though you really care what scripture says!.. and yet ignore that scripture tells us HOW LONG it took him to create them. If scripture says that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" and you don't believe that, then what difference would it make if God told you HOW he created them? You would just claim that it shouldn't be taken literally.

By pointing out that Christ's resurrection is a definitively and unquestionably supernatural event. But the creation of mountains, winds, and species are not.

Scripture doesn't point out that Christ's resurrection was a supernatural event. The reason we assume that it is a "supernatural" event is that there are no "natural" event that we can observe that supports resurrection of the dead. We COULD try to figure out a THEORY that supports such a phenomenon, but so far we don't have one.

You're not addressing the issue. Please show how a literal reading of the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 is done with out adding or assuming anything.

No, you are not addressing the issue. What you are actually doing is being evasive. If you can explain to me how Christ's resurrection from the dead can be demonstrated by a straightforward reading of scripture, without assuming anything, then I will concede that you have a point. You haven't given me a definition of what "100% literal" actually means, so according to your own standards concerning definitions, your argument is totally worthless.

No, science doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Genesis accounts, just as science doesn't agree with the scriptural interpretations of geocentrists. But both of you are making the same mistake, i.e., trying to use scripture as a filter for evaluating scientific research.

How can I be making the "same mistake" about something that I haven't even mentioned? I guess you are making the completely dishonest cliam that I am guilty by association. Is that the standard you are stooping to? When all else fails accuse creationists of being flat-earthers and geocentricists.

And how do we figure such things out? By doing science.

As I pointed out, science it the best tool, short of God's testimony, that we have to explore the physical world, but in no way is it infallible and neither is it a better determinant of what happened at creation. Use science all you want, but don't pretend it is anything more than a cane used to guide a blind man. If you want to know the truth, then read scripture. If you think your cane is a better instrument, then continue staggering around and pretending that it is more that what it is.

Wow. Every time I think this can't more bizarre, it gets cranked up to 11. Why didn't I just ask you? Seriously? I asked you no less than four times

Wow! I answered your questions and yet you continue to pretend that I haven't. That IS bizarre! Perhaps you should go back and consider whether or not your questions are ambiguous and need clarification.... that might help.. or perhaps you should do what I have been asking you to do and tell me what your point is..

 

[snr5557]

Wow! I answered your questions and yet you continue to pretend that I haven't. That IS bizarre! Perhaps you should go back and consider whether or not your questions are ambiguous and need clarification.... that might help.. or perhaps you should do what I have been asking you to do and tell me what your point is..

Because you haven't actually answered the question yet. Sorry to cut in on this, but I've actually grown curious about what you've studied. On another site I asked if they could supply a scientific paper on creation science but they couldn't, so I'd be interested in which articles on all sides you've been reading.

I think that when she means, which parts of the "all sides" that you've studied she means this:

one definition of all: "the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration)"

the whole of anything is usually made up of several parts, as in, all of the individual parts that will make up a whole.

Example: you have one whole pie. You cut the pie into slices. Although these slices are all individual pieces, they make up the entire pie.

She is asking for the individual "slices", as in the different sides, that make up the whole "pie" of "all (the) sides" that you have studied.

 

[River Jordan]

No we don't have science to figure out what happened. You simply assume that we do. Science is based on observation. We have eyes in our heads to help us navigate in the physical world, but as far as being a tool to provide evidence of things "not seen" then you are a very deceived individual.

I understand that to you, science cannot address anything that hasn't been directly observed. That's your opinion and it's simply not shared at all by the scientific community, our legal system, or most other aspects of society.

Scripture says that faith is the evidence of things not seen:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Clearly, biblical faith is much more reliable than sight as a method of determining truth:

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7)

And believing what God says about origins is obviously central to faith:

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

That verse declares that understanding origins is based on FAITH, not SIGHT as evolutionists such as yourself are trying to decieve us to believe.

Keep this in mind later in this post.

I find it a ironic that you argue that scripture doesn't say HOW God created these things ... as though you really care what scripture says!.. and yet ignore that scripture tells us HOW LONG it took him to create them. If scripture says that "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" and you don't believe that, then what difference would it make if God told you HOW he created them? You would just claim that it shouldn't be taken literally.

How could there be a 24-hour day before there was a sun and earth?

Scripture doesn't point out that Christ's resurrection was a supernatural event. The reason we assume that it is a "supernatural" event is that there are no "natural" event that we can observe that supports resurrection of the dead. We COULD try to figure out a THEORY that supports such a phenomenon, but so far we don't have one.

Funny....here you argue that the supernatural conclusion is a result of a lack of natural explanations. Yet you insist on direct, supernatural creation of species despite the existence of natural explanations for them.

No, you are not addressing the issue. What you are actually doing is being evasive. If you can explain to me how Christ's resurrection from the dead can be demonstrated by a straightforward reading of scripture, without assuming anything, then I will concede that you have a point. You haven't given me a definition of what "100% literal" actually means, so according to your own standards concerning definitions, your argument is totally worthless.

Sorry, you asked that after I asked you to show how a literal reading of the two creation accounts in Gensis 1&2 can be done. I'm not playing the game where I ask you a question, you dodge it, ask me a question and demand that I answer it before you'll answer my original question. So again....

How do you read the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 as literal histories without assuming or adding anything?

How can I be making the "same mistake" about something that I haven't even mentioned? I guess you are making the completely dishonest cliam that I am guilty by association. Is that the standard you are stooping to? When all else fails accuse creationists of being flat-earthers and geocentricists.

See above. You just went to great lengths to argue about what scripture says about faith "in things not seen", and put it in the context of a discussion of science's ability to draw conclusions about past events. That's exactly what I was talking about....using scripture as a filter for evaluating scientific research, a context for which it was not written. And you're not only using scripture as a filter for scientific research, you're using it as a filter to determine what science is.

As I pointed out, science it the best tool, short of God's testimony, that we have to explore the physical world, but in no way is it infallible and neither is it a better determinant of what happened at creation. Use science all you want, but don't pretend it is anything more than a cane used to guide a blind man. If you want to know the truth, then read scripture. If you think your cane is a better instrument, then continue staggering around and pretending that it is more that what it is.

Thank you for once again demonstrating my point.

Wow! I answered your questions and yet you continue to pretend that I haven't. That IS bizarre! Perhaps you should go back and consider whether or not your questions are ambiguous and need clarification.... that might help.. or perhaps you should do what I have been asking you to do and tell me what your point is..

Wow. You are really deep into it on this one. All you've answered is "both sides" and "all sides", without ever once saying anything about what those "sides" are. Then you even insinuated that I never asked you!

Let me show you how this works....

I have studied both sides of this issue.

"RJ, what sides are you talking about?"

"I've studied creationism and its arguments (including YEC, IDC, OEC) as well as evolutionary biology."

See how easy that is?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Because you haven't actually answered the question yet. Sorry to cut in on this, but I've actually grown curious about what you've studied. On another site I asked if they could supply a scientific paper on creation science but they couldn't, so I'd be interested in which articles on all sides you've been reading.

I think that when she means, which parts of the "all sides" that you've studied she means this:

one definition of all: "the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration)"

the whole of anything is usually made up of several parts, as in, all of the individual parts that will make up a whole.

Example: you have one whole pie. You cut the pie into slices. Although these slices are all individual pieces, they make up the entire pie.

She is asking for the individual "slices", as in the different sides, that make up the whole "pie" of "all (the) sides" that you have studied.

Snr, you are welcome to jump into this debate, but please base your assumptions about what I have, or haven't done, on what I have said, not what River Jordan claims I have said. That would make things a whole lot easier for you. Please use the quote function, that is what it is for.

Uppsala

 

[snr5557]

Snr, you are welcome to jump into this debate, but please base your assumptions about what I have, or haven't done, on what I have said, not what River Jordan claims I have said. That would make things a whole lot easier for you. Please use the quote function, that is what it is for.

Uppsala

I can only base my knowledge on what I've read on this discussion board, and you haven't really answered yet. Have you taken a class that goes in depth about evolution? Have you read multiple science papers on evolution? You haven't said anything, which is why I ask.

Also, what creation science papers have you read? Just curious.

And I went and found Rivers post on this, it covers most of what's been said:

"Post #77: You said: "Why, if what the Bible says is true, should I avoid speaking about science?? I became aware of this debate years and years ago and decided to have a look at what was being said by both sides."

Post #79: You said: "I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say."

Post #80: I asked: "What from the "science side" did you study? Give specific citations if you can."

Post #81: You said: "Why would I need to study the "science side"? If the truth of origins is beyond the scope of science then why would I need to do that?"

Post #86: I asked: "Earlier you said that you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say" (about things like the fossil record, natural selection, the evolution of aerobic bacteria). But when I asked you to specify what from the science side you studied, you answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?" Can you explain your answer in light of your previous claim that you "looked at both sides"?"

Post #93: You said: "I haven't looked at one particular "science side". I tried to look at it from all side. What's your point?"

Post #94: I asked: "When you said you "have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say", what "sides" were you talking about?"

Post #96: You said: "What I meant was from both sides of this debate."

Post #97: I asked: "You're still not answering the question. You said you had "spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say". What are the two sides you studied? "

Post #105: You said: "I DID answer the question, so don't pretend I didn't because you are too lazy to go back and find it." And from then on you've claimed that you've answered the question."


It's basically been a repeat of that since. Besides, if you've already said the individuals parts that make a whole, which I just don't see in this discussion, could you just repost it, and then explain how that part of the post explains all of the sides that you have studied?

 

[dadman]

I do not believe that evolution has anything to do with discovering the origin of life ..
as a matter of fact .. I find it to be a deterant . . . to discuss the origin of life and whether or not God exists . . .
we have to start with the elements of life . . . matter / energy and ... xxx ........... science has concluded that all life is indeed triune

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I understand that to you, science cannot address anything that hasn't been directly observed. That's your opinion and it's simply not shared at all by the scientific community, our legal system, or most other aspects of society.

Science that isn't observable, repeatable or testable isn't science. Furthermore, it isn't simply my opinion, it is faith based on the testimony of scripture. You can consider my faith to be an opinion if you want, but in doing so you would need to defend YOUR opinion about what you consider to be authoratative, just as I do mine.

How could there be a 24-hour day before there was a sun and earth?

24 hours is simply a measurement of time. Or are you going to insist that inches did not exist before a ruler was made to measure them?

Funny....here you argue that the supernatural conclusion is a result of a lack of natural explanations. Yet you insist on direct, supernatural creation of species despite the existence of natural explanations for them.

There is no "natural explanation" for the creation of the kinds described in Genesis, which is what this debate is all about.

Sorry, you asked that after I asked you to show how a literal reading of the two creation accounts in Gensis 1&2 can be done. I'm not playing the game where I ask you a question, you dodge it, ask me a question and demand that I answer it before you'll answer my original question. So again....
How do you read the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 as literal histories without assuming or adding anything?

How can I answer your question unless you give me a definition of what you mean by "100% literal"???? Or if it makes it easier for you, what is a "literal reading"?

See above. You just went to great lengths to argue about what scripture says about faith "in things not seen", and put it in the context of a discussion of science's ability to draw conclusions about past events. That's exactly what I was talking about....using scripture as a filter for evaluating scientific research, a context for which it was not written. And you're not only using scripture as a filter for scientific research, you're using it as a filter to determine what science is.

Again, I don't see why using scripture to evaluate scientific conclusions about things not seen is using it in an incorrect context, just as I didn't use it as a filter to determine what science is. Science, to me, is what is observable, repeatable and testable. So where did I use scripture to redefine what science is?

Wow. You are really deep into it on this one. All you've answered is "both sides" and "all sides", without ever once saying anything about what those "sides" are. Then you even insinuated that I never asked you
Let me show you how this works....
I have studied both sides of this issue.
"RJ, what sides are you talking about?"
"I've studied creationism and its arguments (including YEC, IDC, OEC) as well as evolutionary biology."
See how easy that is?

Yes, it is easy when you quote things I haven't said.

Let me help you out here River Jordan. I will give you the same advice I gave to snr. USE THE QUOTE TOOL if you wan't to make assertions about what I said or didn't say. Good luck!

And I went and found Rivers post on this, it covers most of what's been said.

I would advise you not to do that because you will only end up making a fool of yourself just as she has. If you want to build up a case against me then do it correctly using the quote tool, in context, and explaining EXACTLY what you mean.

It's basically been a repeat of that since. Besides, if you've already said the individuals parts that make a whole, which I just don't see in this discussion, could you just repost it, and then explain how that part of the post explains all of the sides that you have studied?

You know, I MIGHT be able to do that. I COULD help you out here if I felt motivated to do so, just as I could do so with River Jordan, if I felt she was being sincere about this. Once she started acting like I was under interrogation I got a bit tired of her evasive games. I have asked River Jordan repeatedly to tell me what here point is, but she hasn't done so, so I will ask you the same question - what is your point?

 

[snr5557]

Science that isn't observable, repeatable or testable isn't science. Furthermore, it isn't simply my opinion, it is faith based on the testimony of scripture. You can consider my faith to be an opinion if you want, but in doing so you would need to defend YOUR opinion about what you consider to be authoratative, just as I do mine.


24 hours is simply a measurement of time. Or are you going to insist that inches did not exist before a ruler was made to measure them?


There is no "natural explanation" for the creation of the kinds described in Genesis, which is what this debate is all about.


How can I answer your question unless you give me a definition of what you mean by "100% literal"???? Or if it makes it easier for you, what is a "literal reading"?


Again, I don't see why using scripture to evaluate scientific conclusions about things not seen is using it in an incorrect context, just as I didn't use it as a filter to determine what science is. Science, to me, is what is observable, repeatable and testable. So where did I use scripture to redefine what science is?


Yes, it is easy when you quote things I haven't said.

Let me help you out here River Jordan. I will give you the same advice I gave to snr. USE THE QUOTE TOOL if you wan't to make assertions about what I said or didn't say. Good luck!


I would advise you not to do that because you will only end up making a fool of yourself just as she has. If you want to build up a case against me then do it correctly using the quote tool, in context, and explaining EXACTLY what you mean.


You know, I MIGHT be able to do that. I COULD help you out here if I felt motivated to do so, just as I could do so with River Jordan, if I felt she was being sincere about this. Once she started acting like I was under interrogation I got a bit tired of her evasive games. I have asked River Jordan repeatedly to tell me what here point is, but she hasn't done so, so I will ask you the same question - what is your point?

My point is, tell me exactly what sides you have studied. Saying "all sides" is not saying each individual side.

I don't think she was being evasive, she was telling you exactly what she wanted. I just don't think what we are asking is getting through to you. Was my example with the pie slices not clear? I'm not trying to get anyone upset, but I don't know how else to explain what we're asking.

 

[River Jordan]

Science that isn't observable, repeatable or testable isn't science.

Right. So how does that apply to things that happened in the past? Are we not able conduct tests for past events?

Furthermore, it isn't simply my opinion, it is faith based on the testimony of scripture.

Exactly. You are using scripture in a scientific context.

24 hours is simply a measurement of time. Or are you going to insist that inches did not exist before a ruler was made to measure them?

Um, it clearly says "morning and evening" prior to the creation of the earth and the sun. How can that be?

There is no "natural explanation" for the creation of the kinds described in Genesis, which is what this debate is all about.

Yes there is. You may reject them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

How can I answer your question unless you give me a definition of what you mean by "100% literal"???? Or if it makes it easier for you, what is a "literal reading"?

It's what you described as a "plain reading of the text". So, how do you read the Genesis 1&2 creation accounts under a "plain reading" interpretive framework?

Again, I don't see why using scripture to evaluate scientific conclusions about things not seen is using it in an incorrect context, just as I didn't use it as a filter to determine what science is.

See above.

Yes, it is easy when you quote things I haven't said.

Let me help you out here River Jordan. I will give you the same advice I gave to snr. USE THE QUOTE TOOL if you wan't to make assertions about what I said or didn't say. Good luck!

Now this has become just plain funny.

I not only quoted you word for word, but I linked to the posts where they came from. All you've said is that you've "studied both sides" and "all sides". Not once have you specified what "sides" you studied. That's a matter of record. Since then, you've put a lot of time into doing everything besides simply saying 'I studied _______".

If your entire reason for spending so much time not specifying is because you don't know why I asked, then I'll clarify (see how easy it is to be straightforward an forthcoming)....I got the impression that you were claiming to have studied some science related to evolutionary biology. So I thought I was interacting with a young-earth creationist who's actually studied some biology, which is extremely rare. But before I proceeded on that basis, I wanted to make sure my impression was correct. That's why I asked, "What from the science side have you studied". But then you got all freaky and said "Why would I need to study the science side".

That just made this whole thing that much more confusing. If you hadn't studied "the science side", what were you talking about when you said you'd studied "both sides" of "this subject". I still don't know, and obviously neither does anyone else.

So I guess if your goal all along was to deliberately confuse the heck out of everyone and make me think you're hiding something, then.....well done!

 

[aspen]

river jordan has been clear during this entire conversation. you guys may not like her viewpoint, but you cannot rationally state that she has been unclear or evasive.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Right. So how does that apply to things that happened in the past? Are we not able conduct tests for past events?

Sure you can. You can do whatever you want, as long as you are conscious of the fact that you could be wrong about things that are not directly observable. If you want to consider such things to be of a higher authority than scripture then that is your choice.

Exactly. You are using scripture in a scientific context.

No, I am using scripture in any context. If what the Bible says is true then it is true in any context. Scientists are free to draw the conclusions they want to draw, but whether or not those conclusions are true is a faith matter.

Um, it clearly says "morning and evening" prior to the creation of the earth and the sun. How can that be?

Sure, but the same thing applies here. Mornings and evenings are simply a division of time, most likely used here to emphasize the fact that God was speaking of a 24-hour day.

Yes there is. You may reject them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

That depends on what you mean by explanation. There are also explanations that explain Jesus resurrection. The swoon theory is one, but there are many more.

It's what you described as a "plain reading of the text". So, how do you read the Genesis 1&2 creation accounts under a "plain reading" interpretive framework?

Well read them then. OK? Now we're done.

See above.

I don't see anything "above" that explains what you mean.

Now this has become just funny.
I not only quoted you word for word, but I linked to the posts where they came from. All you've said is that you've "studied both sides" and "all sides". Not once have you specified what "sides" you studied. That's a matter of record. Since then, you've put a lot of time into doing everything besides simply saying 'I studied _______".
If your entire reason for spending so much time not specifying is because you don't know why I asked, then I'll clarify (see how easy it is to be straightforward an forthcoming)....I got the impression that you were claiming to have studied some science related to evolutionary biology. So I thought I was interacting with a young-earth creationist who's actually studied some biology, which is extremely rare. But before I proceeded on that basis, I wanted to make sure my impression was correct. That's why I asked, "What from the science side have you studied". But then you got all freaky and said "Why would I need to study the science side".

That just made this whole thing that much more confusing. If you hadn't studied "the science side", what were you talking about when you said you'd studied "both sides" of "this subject". I still don't know, and obviously neither does anyone else.
So I guess if your goal all along was to deliberately confuse the heck out of everyone and make me think you're hiding something, then.....well done

You misquoted me. That's what's so funny!

 

[snr5557]

You misquoted me. That's what's so funny!

Then just state what sides you've studied so we can move on from this part of the debate.

 

[Mr.Bride]

**For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, does not come from the Father, but from the world. The world and it's desires pass away but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it's the last hour.

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

But you have an unction from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie come from the truth.

Who is the liar?

It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist-denying the Father and Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us-eternal life.

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.

As for you, the anointing you recieved from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him.~1 John 2:16-27 NIV

Is his anointing teaching you all things? All things. Is it real to you? Why did they go out from us?

Let what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. Don't be led astray. Mighty Blessings :)

 

[aspen]

oh brother..........
i think this discussion is over.......

 

[River Jordan]

Sure you can. You can do whatever you want, as long as you are conscious of the fact that you could be wrong about things that are not directly observable.

Oh, so now things from the distant past are testable and therefore within the realm of science. Great.

If you want to consider such things to be of a higher authority than scripture then that is your choice.

There's that using scripture in a scientific context again.

No, I am using scripture in any context.

LOL. "I'm not using scripture in a scientific context, I'm using it in any context"

If what the Bible says is true then it is true in any context. Scientists are free to draw the conclusions they want to draw, but whether or not those conclusions are true is a faith matter.

A person using a computer and the internet to express such a view is hilarious.

Sure, but the same thing applies here. Mornings and evenings are simply a division of time, most likely used here to emphasize the fact that God was speaking of a 24-hour day.

A "morning and evening" where? Mornings, evenings, and days are different in different places. A "day" on Jupiter is only 9 earth hours, whereas a "day" on Venus is 116 earth days. Since the earth and sun hadn't been created yet, the days, evenings, and mornings can't have been from an earth perspective. So what did they refer to, and how do you know?

That depends on what you mean by explanation. There are also explanations that explain Jesus resurrection. The swoon theory is one, but there are many more.

I'm taking about a longstanding widely accepted scientific theory like evolutionary common descent. Not a "theory" in the "made something up" sense.

Well read them then. OK? Now we're done.

You ever hear that saying about how trying to get a creationist to answer a question is like trying to nail jello to a tree in a hurricane? You're putting the truth to that pretty well.

I'm done chasing you around trying to get you to answer simple questions. Your need for evasiveness speaks for itself.

You misquoted me. That's what's so funny!

I not only quoted you directly, word for word, I included links to the original post so if there was any question about what was said, a simple mouse click went right to the original post.

When you decide you're ready to engage in a discussion openly and honestly, let me know. Otherwise, I'm done. This has gone from strange, to funny, and now it's just sad.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Then just state what sides you've studied so we can move on from this part of the debate.

Just state what your point is then maybe we can. I am not under interrogation by you or anyone else, especially when you base your questions on what someone else misquotes. If you think you know what was being said by me then demonstrate that you understand what I said, rather than rushing in to support what your precious friend here and pretending that you aren't trying to offend anyone.

Oh, so now things from the distant past are testable and therefore within the realm of science. Great.

I didn't say that things from the "distant past" were testable. You threw in the word "distant" as though you were hoping I wouldn't notice. You asked me about whether or not we could "conduct tests for past events", which COULD mean whether or not we can test our assumptions about the past could be tested. That much I can accept, but please, don't put words into my mouth that I haven't said. Not only do I dislike like people misquoting me, I find it dishonest and sly when people twist what I say.

A person using a computer and the internet to express such a view is hilarious.

What does using a computer and the internet have to do with this?

A "morning and evening" where? Mornings, evenings, and days are different in different places. A "day" on Jupiter is only 9 earth hours, whereas a "day" on Venus is 116 earth days. Since the earth and sun hadn't been created yet, the days, evenings, and mornings can't have been from an earth perspective. So what did they refer to, and how do you know?

Why are you being so evasive? What are you going to do next... poke out your tongue? If you are going to be silly about this then don't pretend to be anything other than a defiant little infant. You want to play games, go find a sandpit somewhere down the street. If you want a serious discussion then let me know.

I'm taking about a longstanding widely accepted scientific theory like evolutionary common descent. Not a "theory" in the "made something up" sense.

Get back to me when you can demonstrate that "longstanding widely accepted scientific theories" have always been right. In the meantime you might want to read up on the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.

You ever hear that saying about how trying to get a creationist to answer a question is like trying to nail jello to a tree in a hurricane? You're putting the truth to that pretty well.
I'm done chasing you around trying to get you to answer simple questions. Your need for evasiveness speaks for itself.

That's a funny thing to say after I just answered YOUR question but you DIDN'T answer mine!!

I not only quoted you directly, word for word, I included links to the original post so if there was any question about what was said, a simple mouse click went right to the original post.
When you decide you're ready to engage in a discussion openly and honestly, let me know. Otherwise, I'm done. This has gone from strange, to funny, and now it's just sad.

Openly and honestly? Hypocrite, if you were open and honest then you wouldn't have misquoted me. In my books, when someone puts something within quotes then it should reflect WORD FOR WORD what I actually said. Sure, some of what you quoted was correct, but not all of it, and if you think you are fit to lecture me about what being open and honest is all about then I think you owe me an appology, because not only did you misquote me, you missled your gullible followers here. Let me know when you have a shred of humility in this discussion, rather than trying to insult me, and maybe I will show you exactly what I mean.

 

[snr5557]

Just state what your point is then maybe we can. I am not under interrogation by you or anyone else, especially when you base your questions on what someone else misquotes. If you think you know what was being said by me then demonstrate that you understand what I said, rather than rushing in to support what your precious friend here and pretending that you aren't trying to offend anyone.


I didn't say that things from the "distant past" were testable. You threw in the word "distant" as though you were hoping I wouldn't notice. You asked me about whether or not we could "conduct tests for past events", which COULD mean whether or not we can test our assumptions about the past could be tested. That much I can accept, but please, don't put words into my mouth that I haven't said. Not only do I dislike like people misquoting me, I find it dishonest and sly when people twist what I say.


What does using a computer and the internet have to do with this?


Why are you being so evasive? What are you going to do next... poke out your tongue? If you are going to be silly about this then don't pretend to be anything other than a defiant little infant. You want to play games, go find a sandpit somewhere down the street. If you want a serious discussion then let me know.


Get back to me when you can demonstrate that "longstanding widely accepted scientific theories" have always been right. In the meantime you might want to read up on the "argument from authority" logical fallacy.


That's a funny thing to say after I just answered YOUR question but you DIDN'T answer mine!!


Openly and honestly? Hypocrite, if you were open and honest then you wouldn't have misquoted me. In my books, when someone puts something within quotes then it should reflect WORD FOR WORD what I actually said. Sure, some of what you quoted was correct, but not all of it, and if you think you are fit to lecture me about what being open and honest is all about then I think you owe me an appology, because not only did you misquote me, you missled your gullible followers here. Let me know when you have a shred of humility in this discussion, rather than trying to insult me, and maybe I will show you exactly what I mean.

The point is you said you studied both sides, and you came to your conclusion of evolution. We are just asking what those sides were. For me, I have yet to see a scientific paper on creation science, so I wanted to see if you had read any. Because if you had read any, then you should be able to find me at least one. As far as I know there is no such thing as a creation science paper. And, if you have not actually read a creation science paper, since they probably don't even exist, why would I even think that you have read a scientific paper? What class or books or journals have you read on evolution? And who did you learn it from? Where did you learn this from? Why can't you answer? Why are you being so defensive with such a simple question?