- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
Cool. There's one in June this year in North Carolina. CLICK HERE Let me know when you make your travel plans.KingJ said:I don't mind attending and helping you all to unbiasedly google the probability odds of evolution.
Wow...you are really angry.You have no problem urinating on scripture like the majority?
Adam and Eve were the first to have God-breathed souls. That's a miraculous event.and miraculously Eve was right behind that... human...with equal sufficient consciousness :blink:...why must I help someone with a biology degree grasp probability odds?
Because particle don't do anything like what you're trying to say. Again, why do you think chemistry is random?Me = How many particles that can ''mutate'' in 1 cell 3.5 billion years ago? lets determine the insurmountable probability odds.
You: particles don't mutate...full stop.
Conclusion = pedantically evasive, cling to heterodoxy. Why not ''grasp'' the inverted commas around ''mutate'' and say, particles don't mutate but such and such do and there are x amount needed in that cell for likely evolution / whatever.
Ok, fine. Does gravity mock God? After all, gravity is what allows animals to fall off cliffs or out of trees. Or do you believe that no such accidents ever happened prior to the fall?Me = Evolution mocks God (portrays Him as evil), the cross (evolving accountability) and all of scripture (where are the records of 200k years?) .
You = Yep, you've made it quite clear how that's your conclusion, and that like most fundamentalists, you have absolutely no tolerance for differing opinions. But again, that view is a minority one within Christianity
Conclusion = Childish /evasive / blurring /cling to heterodoxy. A reply should be, ''no, natural selection does not mock God because of X and Y....the cross is not mocked because of X and Y...scripture is not mocked because of X and Y.'' That would then transpire into fruitful discussion where we can evaluate the soundness / logic of your belief. Agreeing with the majority does not make you right. Scripture / Jesus and all the prophets would agree with me that the probability odds are not in your favor.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying scientists shouldn't try and figure origins out, should just read scripture, and go do something else?UppsalaDragby said:Who told you that everything is available for us to figure out?
Did you figure out that Jesus rose from the dead or did you believe what scripture told you?
No, it's exactly what I said: Genesis 1 merely says God created mankind. There's no mention of Adam, Eve, or the method used.What do you mean you didn't invoke that for us? Are you saying that we are not the product of evolution?
Because that's my interpretation. The words used and the repeated use of Hebrew jussives show a clear, consistent theme of God creating by letting things happen.OK, so why have you repeatedly pointed out the fact that God "let the earth bring forth..." and even claimed that him "letting" it happen indicated that it occurred "by itself". Perhaps I missunderstood your point.
So your idea of "kinds" is "earth-dwellers", "sea-dwellers", and "sky-dwellers"? That's it?It DOES say what a kind is in as much as it distinguishes between earth-dwellers, sea-dwellers and sky-dwellers. It also teaches us that from the day of creation separate kinds produced "after its kind". That might not be enough to satisfy our needs to classify all animals from a scientific perspective, but it is enough information to show us that the theory of common descent contradicts scripture.
Also, organisms reproducing after their own "kind" (whatever it is) doesn't contradict evolutionary theory, but is rather surprisingly consistent with it. Under evolutionary theory, organisms reproduce within their own groupings (kinds if you will). IOW, horses don't reproduce with gila monsters, dogs don't reproduce with fish, etc. Likewise, horses don't give birth to gila monsters, dogs don't give birth to fish, etc.
Yes there is. The fact that the periods are divided along days, mornings, and evenings before there was an earth or sun is an indication that there may be another purpose to those words besides "This is how long it took".Also, scripture would only need to tell us what a "day" refers to if it didn't refer to what we normally consider to be a day. There is nothing in the text that indicates a divergence from the common meaning of the word and we can also see that it delimits the creation days with evenings and mornings.
There's a rather significant difference between the sun being obscured, and it not existing at all.A day doesn't suddenly cease to be "literal" because it doesn't seem logical from our perspective. And if for some reason the sun was suddenly blotted out of the sky for a few days I think we would STILL call the first half of the day morning, the second half evening, and the whole 24 hours would still be called a "day".
I read it differently.So unless you can explain how the absence of sunlight during the first three days suddenly makes it symbolic, I think the literal meaning of the word is the best explanation.