Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Schroeder]

JacksBratt:
<< gamble your eternal existence >>

You are making beliefs about creation and the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis a matter of salvation. Why? They aren't in any church creed.

Point of fact: Every day, people are severing their last connection with Christianity because of creationism. People are leaving the church because it doesn't make sense. By pushing creationism, you are gambling with their salvation.

I have talked with people who ceased to identify as Christians because of creationism. I have talked to at least one who escaped that fate through a miracle. When people are raised as creationists, it is very hard to become a non-creationist Christian. After all, they have been taught that there is no such thing.

that is a complete lie. no factual evidence of this at all. One as no idea of ones actual faith or belief or salvation. what one says means nothing in regards to actual salvation. For one there are many who claim Christianity and do not even believe in scripture or some main tenets of it. some claim it because their parents take them to church. You claim one can disregard creationism and still be a Christian yet claim also that people loose their faith because of it. soo how is that plausible. if one can be a Christian without believing in creationism its not possible to disbelieve it because others do believe in creationism.

 

[Schroeder]

I don't know any scientist who is against further investigation of the items you mention. It is possible that some of these items are misunderstandings. What was taken to be a shoe sole might be something else, for instance. We sometimes force everything we see into a category we recognize.

One thing I've noticed is that creationists start from the assumption that creationism is a fairly reasonable idea. They think that if they can poke one hole in evolution, or science, then creationism is the only thing left standing. The problem is that creationism isn't a reasonable idea. Any number of specific problems with the evolutionary timeline still leave creationism a complete mess. Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

don't mean to be rude but I have debated a lot of evolutionist and your not very good at it. I am sure evolutionist are certain the theory is fact and that there is NO other option. hard to think out side the box with this view. they will always find the evidence to fit into the theory. and others have shown the error of your last remark. And it is obvious one will force what we see into what we believe is true. fact is neither the theory or creation is provable so its all based on your beliefs and feeling etc. We believe what we believe and until we are shown otherwise that's the why it stays. I have never been shown anything in the theory that actually proves the theory. I have never been shown anything that actually proves creation. But I have experienced salvation saving grace and the spirit within me. I have experienced things in which science can never explain. so my faith rests in scripture.

 

[rjs330]

JacksBratt:
<< gamble your eternal existence >>

You are making beliefs about creation and the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis a matter of salvation. Why? They aren't in any church creed.

Point of fact: Every day, people are severing their last connection with Christianity because of creationism. People are leaving the church because it doesn't make sense. By pushing creationism, you are gambling with their salvation.

I have talked with people who ceased to identify as Christians because of creationism. I have talked to at least one who escaped that fate through a miracle. When people are raised as creationists, it is very hard to become a non-creationist Christian. After all, they have been taught that there is no such thing.

If someone leaves Christianity because of creationism their faith was very weak to begin with. In fact one would wonder if they really received salvation if they are shaken so easily. But then Jesus did say that there were all kinds of different hearts and only those with good soil would be saved. Others would fall away.

This is a reason why evolution is so insidious. Ultimately it forces people to defend scripture as written or twist it to try and force it to say something it doesn't. Ultimately it places doubt upon God's word.

Something I think the devil is very good at.

 

[JacksBratt]

JacksBratt:
<< gamble your eternal existence >>

You are making beliefs about creation and the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis a matter of salvation. Why? They aren't in any church creed.

Point of fact: Every day, people are severing their last connection with Christianity because of creationism. People are leaving the church because it doesn't make sense. By pushing creationism, you are gambling with their salvation.

I have talked with people who ceased to identify as Christians because of creationism. I have talked to at least one who escaped that fate through a miracle. When people are raised as creationists, it is very hard to become a non-creationist Christian. After all, they have been taught that there is no such thing.

My comment was not just about Genesis being literal. It is about all these assumptions and twisting of words, stretching a phrase, ignoring plain text, using rare meanings and contexts of words or phrases ...... all for one thing,..... backing evolution.

Yes, YEC or TOE may not be a game changer as far as believing the gospel and accepting Christs gift of salvation.... however, if you are going to believe the carbon date method of men, the interpretation of the fossil record by men, the genealogy investigation and interpretation by men, or the interpretation of any scripture as interpreted by man that is used to reinforce evolution.....which is one of the biggest anti Christian, anti biblical, anti GOD movements of history.....I would think twice.

God clearly stated that the wisdom of men is foolish.

I would rather take the Biblical account, as written and be wrong. Than take man's account of history and be wrong.

 

[Wunderlust]

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

First of all, quoting other people's materials without citing it is theft.

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

I am familiar with the quote and it is not a definition of time as an illusion. Einstein used and defined time in his works. His most famous equation, E=MC^2 would be meaningless if he defined time as an illusion. Einstein is speaking of how we perceive time, not time as a measurable and predictable element of reality.

 

[Wunderlust]

It is the providence of God to insure that His Word does not return void...making what history has attested to of His word - His will.

What you just said is a lot of nonsense.

Misinterpretation is a cop out, a complete misunderstanding - there is nothing contradictory in His word.

I didn't say anything about misinterpretation. Creationism is about picking Genesis 1 and ignoring Genesis 2, and deciding to interpret the passage as literal instead of accepting it is obviously metaphorical. One must also ignore biblical criticism which reveals Genesis 1 and 2 are from separate sources that were combined at a later date.

 

[Wunderlust]

You seem to be under the assumption that this is a debate. It's not.

God (and those who are of One spirit with Him) is the source of all knowledge and truth. Science, on the other hand, has take away the key of knowledge and is experimenting with only a fraction of the information and drawing conclusions without knowing the end. Luke 11:52

All you had to do...was ask.

Scott is under the assumption, based on his apparently limited life experiences, that his philosophical views and narrow theological understanding is in fact God's. Thus, what Scott posts is not up for debate, because God is not up for debate.

Unless you believe in God in the pagan sense of a god that lives in clouds, or on Mount Olympus, or other such things in which God exists (rather than gives existence) and exists within creation, God exists outside of creation. Thus, spiritual things are not measurable. They cannot be measured or understood by the senses. That is, God cannot be understood by science because God is beyond the perceptions of science. Therefore, what can be known about God is only what is revealed in revelation. Although the state of man is geared towards God and can therefore give some hint of God by understanding ourselves - we understand our creator by understanding ourselves, Christianity largely considers God as understood through revelation, rather than natural religion or the philosophies of the nature of man.

Anyways, science is the study of the natural word through human senses and reasoning. Theology is the study of God through revelation and reasoning.

God is not a source of scientific knowledge. The idea that God would waste time revealing things we can find out by ourselves instead of revealing things we can not find out by ourselves (spiritual, unmeasurable, untestable things) is absurd.

 

[ScottA]

First of all, quoting other people's materials without citing it is theft.



I am familiar with the quote and it is not a definition of time as an illusion. Einstein used and defined time in his works. His most famous equation, E=MC^2 would be meaningless if he defined time as an illusion. Einstein is speaking of how we perceive time, not time as a measurable and predictable element of reality.

Einstein presented a glimpse of the reality of God, a perspective uncommon and misunderstood by humanity, for those who could see and hear it. You defending the perspective of humanity, does nothing but obscure the glimpse and put us back 70+ years on our understanding of God. Well done.

 

[ScottA]

What you just said is a lot of nonsense.



I didn't say anything about misinterpretation. Creationism is about picking Genesis 1 and ignoring Genesis 2, and deciding to interpret the passage as literal instead of accepting it is obviously metaphorical. One must also ignore biblical criticism which reveals Genesis 1 and 2 are from separate sources that were combined at a later date.

So you say.

And I said nothing about ignoring Genesis 2. And if you said nothing about misinterpretation before, you are saying it now. Your metaphoric interpretation...is your interpretation - obviously.

You test (tempt) God.

 

[ScottA]

Scott is under the assumption, based on his apparently limited life experiences, that his philosophical views and narrow theological understanding is in fact God's. Thus, what Scott posts is not up for debate, because God is not up for debate.

Unless you believe in God in the pagan sense of a god that lives in clouds, or on Mount Olympus, or other such things in which God exists (rather than gives existence) and exists within creation, God exists outside of creation. Thus, spiritual things are not measurable. They cannot be measured or understood by the senses. That is, God cannot be understood by science because God is beyond the perceptions of science. Therefore, what can be known about God is only what is revealed in revelation. Although the state of man is geared towards God and can therefore give some hint of God by understanding ourselves - we understand our creator by understanding ourselves, Christianity largely considers God as understood through revelation, rather than natural religion or the philosophies of the nature of man.

Anyways, science is the study of the natural word through human senses and reasoning. Theology is the study of God through revelation and reasoning.

God is not a source of scientific knowledge. The idea that God would waste time revealing things we can find out by ourselves instead of revealing things we can not find out by ourselves (spiritual, unmeasurable, untestable things) is absurd.

I am under no assumption...but apparently you are.

 

[Wunderlust]

Einstein presented a glimpse of the reality of God, a perspective uncommon and misunderstood by humanity, for those who could see and hear it.

No, that wasn't what the quote was about.

You defending the perspective of humanity,

What? I am pointing out what Einstein said, rather than the bizarre things you made of his quote.

does nothing but obscure the glimpse and put us back 70+ years on our understanding of God. Well done.

You aren't making any sense.

 

[Wunderlust]

I am under no assumption...but apparently you are.

Great response.

 

[Wunderlust]

So you say.

And I said nothing about ignoring Genesis 2. And if you said nothing about misinterpretation before, you are saying it now. Your metaphoric interpretation...is your interpretation - obviously.

You test (tempt) God.

How is disagreeing with illogical man made doctrines testing God? Please state the order of creation. What was created on each day. Then, I will show you the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 in order.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

..Please state the order of creation. What was created on each day. Then, I will show you the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 in order.

Is that your [supposed] reason or choice why you deny creation ?

 

[-57]

How is disagreeing with illogical man made doctrines testing God? Please state the order of creation. What was created on each day. Then, I will show you the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 in order.

I'll bite....
day 1. Earth and light.
day 2. Expanse
day 3. Land sea vegetation
day 4. Great lights
day 5. Fish birds
day 6. Land animals man

 

[Wunderlust]

Is that your [supposed] reason or choice why you deny creation ?

I am not denying creation - that's all around me.
I reject the man-made theory of creationism because it is trying to make scientific truth out of Genesis 1 which is a metaphor. It is also contradicts overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

[Wunderlust]

I'll bite....
day 1. Earth and light.
day 2. Expanse
day 3. Land sea vegetation
day 4. Great lights
day 5. Fish birds
day 6. Land animals man

Genesis 2;
Before plants and rain, there were streams
Then God made Adam
Then God made trees
Then God made animals and birds
Then God made eve

A Creationist will ready that and go into desperate mental contortions.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1 Corinthians 1:20
KJ21
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
ASV
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
AMP
Where is the wise man (philosopher)? Where is the scribe (scholar)? Where is the debater (logician, orator) of this age? Has God not exposed the foolishness of this world’s wisdom?

It is also contradicts overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

[Wunderlust]

1 Corinthians 1:20
KJ21
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
ASV
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
AMP
Where is the wise man (philosopher)? Where is the scribe (scholar)? Where is the debater (logician, orator) of this age? Has God not exposed the foolishness of this world’s wisdom?

Quoting scripture isn't a response. Scripture is used to further an argument, not to present as if it makes the argument for you.

 

[ScottA]

No, that wasn't what the quote was about.

What? I am pointing out what Einstein said, rather than the bizarre things you made of his quote.

You aren't making any sense.

For this reason, it is written:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.