when did God say...

[Assyrian]

No but he did not create evolution, check its source. you have not quoted darwin or any other original evolutionary thinker who states theygot the theory from God or where it is grounded in scripture.

Did the atheists Watson and Crick state that they got the structure of DNA from God? Is it grounded in scripture? Does this have anything to do with whether the science is right or not? This is another of your absurd arguments.

 

[gluadys]

two personal attacks in a row,

Not insults, more an observation along the lines of "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck."

You use a common athiestic argument to the effect that a natural explanation is an anti-God explanation. Who but an atheist would say that nature is anti-God?

If you are not an atheist, why do you accept atheist arguments that nature is anti-God and natural explanations exclude God?

You cite in support of your arguments that they are also made by a known atheist.

If you are not an atheist, why do you appeal to an atheist for support?

i know TE's only follow the scripture they want or can manipulate

So you also believe a lie about TEs.

you do not know what dangerous ground you are on as you look to the unbelievers for your information.

Speak for yourself. You are letting atheists tell you what to believe about nature. You are promoting the atheistic idea that nature contradicts the Creator of nature.

depends on who is doing the interpretating,

I didn't ask if anyone's interpretation of creation agrees or disagrees with scripture or anyone's interpretation of scripture.

I asked if creation disagrees with scripture.

those of us who believe God created it without evolution then no, creation doesn't disagree with scripture; if you add in evolution then yes, creation then disagrees with scriptures, for it is not creation speaking but unbelievers who cannot accept what God said He did.

It is not for us to decide whether to "add in" or not "add in" evolution. Evolution is already part of creation . We cannot add it in nor can we subtract it either.

redundent and you are not listening to creation, you are listening to secular scientists who have omited, eliminated, ignored God. which for the believer, God said not to do.

Doesn't this whole argument depend on agreeing with atheists that nature excludes God? Just who is listening to unbelievers, archie?

saying God created all things then adding in an imaginary theory does not make evolution a creation of God.

Claiming evolution is imaginary does not make it imaginary.

life doesn't evolve.

Refusing to accept facts does not make them go away.

personal attack #3,

Again, not a personal attack, but an observation.

When I said I questioned your assessment of evolution, you responded:

then you question God and the Bible

Are you God? Are you the Bible?

When I questioned that you had substantiated your claim, you responded

you are saying that Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the apostles are lying??

Are you Jesus? Are you the Holy Spirit? are you one of the apostles?

When you cannot tell the difference between yourself and God/the Bible/Jesus/the Holy Spirit/the apostles, it seems to me you are engaged in self-idolatry.

So let me state for clarification, that anything I state about your assertions and your claims is NOT a statement about God/the Bible/Jesus/the Holy Spirit/the apostles.

It is about you and only about you.

So don't try to deflect a criticism of you by falsely claiming it is a criticism of God.

 

[archaeologist]

If you are not an atheist, why do you appeal to an atheist for support?

it is quite apparant you can make all the accusations you want and not worry about having a post removed as you are a theistic evolutionists and this is a TE board.

you obviously do not understand the concept of using examples so this part of your response is ignored and your misrepresentations thrown out .

So you also believe a lie about TEs.

how am i believing a lie when i am reading your responses directly? your whole 'God created nature,evolution exists in nature thus God created evolution ' argument is one big manipultion of scripture and has no foundation in God's word or actions.

Speak for yourself. You are letting atheists tell you what to believe about nature. You are promoting the atheistic idea that nature contradicts the Creator of nature.

no, it is a statement making you aware of your current position. the fact that you keep misrepresenting what i say just compounds your situation.

"God is not mocked, what a man soweth he also reapeth...'

I asked if creation disagrees with scripture.

i gave you an answer and you are avoiding it. if you agree with God, then yes. if you agree with darwin, then no. there is no evolution with God.

Refusing to accept facts does not make them go away.

it isn't a fact but a surmise, aninferrence, a conjecture that life evolves. haven't you noticed that all said 'observations ' come from the 20th century onward and nothing from the most ancient of records?

if evolution were true, we would have had confirmation of it by now and it would have been duly reported throughout time and in the Bible.

since man is made in the image of God, are you saying that God evolved before He created the heavens and the earth? how did He get His power then? how did He originate then?

It is not for us to decide whether to "add in" or not "add in" evolution. Evolution is already part of creation . We cannot add it in nor can we subtract it either

no, it didn't. you are believing a deception if you follow that line of thinking.

Are you God? Are you the Bible?

When I questioned that you had substantiated your claim, you responded

Are you Jesus? Are you the Holy Spirit? are you one of the apostles

.

When you cannot tell the difference between yourself and God/the Bible/Jesus/the Holy Spirit/the apostles, it seems to me you are engaged in self-idolatry.

personal attack--ignored. your misrepresenting whati amsaying is merely a distraction and i refuse to get caught up in such ridiculous statements.

assyrian:

Did the atheists Watson and Crick state that they got the structure of DNA from God? Is it grounded in scripture? Does this have anything to do with whether the science is right or not? This is another of your absurd arguments.

evolution has every Bible verse speaking against it. a big difference between that and the discovery of DNA.

 

[gluadys]

it is quite apparant you can make all the accusations you want and not worry about having a post removed as you are a theistic evolutionists and this is a TE board.

Or maybe you have been harassing the mods with too many reports and they are tired of listening to you cry "wolf!" when there is none there.

i gave you an answer and you are avoiding it. if you agree with God, then yes. if you agree with darwin, then no. there is no evolution with God.

You avoided answering the question and went off topic, talking about evolution and interpretations of creation. The question was not about interpretations. The question was about creation. And you haven't answered that question yet.

it isn't a fact but a surmise, aninferrence, a conjecture that life evolves. haven't you noticed that all said 'observations ' come from the 20th century onward and nothing from the most ancient of records?

if evolution were true, we would have had confirmation of it by now and it would have been duly reported throughout time and in the Bible.

Evolution is a fact and we do have confirmation for it. But you won't see it as long as you keep your eyes closed.

since man is made in the image of God, are you saying that God evolved before He created the heavens and the earth? how did He get His power then? how did He originate then?

This is your imaginary script for TEs again.

personal attack--ignored. your misrepresenting whati amsaying is merely a distraction and i refuse to get caught up in such ridiculous statements.

Well you can stop inviting these "personal attacks" when you stop representing any questioning of yourself as if it were questioning God.

 

[archaeologist]

You avoided answering the question and went off topic, talking about evolution and interpretations of creation. The question was not about interpretations. The question was about creation. And you haven't answered that question yet.

i did answer it. i just left you no room to play your games.

Evolution is a fact and we do have confirmation for it. But you won't see it as long as you keep your eyes closed.

if you did you would have cited it by now and it isn't a fact but a declaration filled with conjecture. basically you are building and playing with a house of cards.

This is your imaginary script for TEs again.

you complain that i didn't answer your question, when i did, and here you are avoiding mine. how typical and hypocritical.

Well you can stop inviting these "personal attacks" when you stop representing any questioning of yourself as if it were questioning God.

i am not inviting them, you are using them because you are caught in your own little web. i go with God's word first not science. God's word has given us many wonderful tools to use so that we may know when someone is a false teacher, liar, not of God or Christ and when they are proclaiming false philosophies, theories and so on.

darwin and buddies fall fall into that false teaching category.

there is one more question you have avoided answering--the thread's title and first sentence. or are you going to avoid that one as well?

 

[gluadys]

there is one more question you have avoided answering--the thread's title and first sentence. or are you going to avoid that one as well?

The question is nonsensical. It makes even less sense than the question posed to Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar.

Science is not religious or secular. It is good or bad, true or false. Good science, true science, science that correctly describes creation, cannot possibly be out of step with the Word who is the source of creation.

So there is never any need to make the choice posed in your question.

 

[archaeologist]

The question is nonsensical

no it isn't. it has a point and is important for all to answer. right now you are just doing what you accuse me of--- not answerig a question.

Good science, true science, science that correctly describes creation, cannot possibly be out of step with the Word who is the source of creation.

unless you answer the question, you will never know what is right or wrong in science.

So there is never any need to make the choice posed in your question.

yes there is a need for it reveals if you are on the right track or not, if science is on the right track and so on. if you are not following God but take science over Him, then you are not walking the right road.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Fave marker.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Koko first posting!

 

[Assyrian]

assyrian:
evolution has every Bible verse speaking against it. a big difference between that and the discovery of DNA.

So you argument that Darwin did not get his theory from scripture or say he got it from God is irrelevant. It tells us nothing about the theory being true or not. Not when Watson and Crick were atheists and came up with the true structure of DNA. If it is irrelevant to the truth of evolution then I don't know why you bring it up.

The only basis for your argument is that you think 'every Bible verse speaks against it'. Unfortunately you have not been able to demonstrate this strange claim in your time here on this website.

To Glaudys:

since man is made in the image of God, are you saying that God evolved before He created the heavens and the earth? how did He get His power then? how did He originate then?

If you think the method God used to make man in his image is part of the image, then...

since man is made in the image of God, are you saying that God was made of dust before He created the heavens and the earth? how did He get His power then? how did He originate then?

 

[archaeologist]

Did the atheists Watson and Crick state that they got the structure of DNA from God? Is it grounded in scripture? Does this have anything to do with whether the science is right or not

i have given this a lot of thought and this two men are not building a whole philosophy out of their DNA work. it is used to provide evidence for a philosophy that has been built outside of God but then, as i have said, every con has some truth to it or it wouldn't work.

how this work is applied, rightly or wrongly does not change the fact that God created DNA, yet that idea still does not provide any support for the existence of evolution or that evolution was created by God.

such credit is attributed to evolution and evolutionary thinking but at no time does such evidence prove evolution exists.

 

[Assyrian]

i have given this a lot of thought and this two men are not building a whole philosophy out of their DNA work. it is used to provide evidence for a philosophy that has been built outside of God but then, as i have said, every con has some truth to it or it wouldn't work.

how this work is applied, rightly or wrongly does not change the fact that God created DNA,

And the fact that some people use evolution as the basis for their philosophy does not change the fact that evolution is a sound scientific analysis of the world God created.

yet that idea still does not provide any support for the existence of evolution or that evolution was created by God.

I wasn't trying to do that there. I was just showing your attack on evolution based on the religion of the scientists was a groundless ad hom.

If science has shown that life on earth evolved and the bible tells us that God created everything, then the implication is that God created evolution, just as we know God created kangaroos, emus, the law of gravity and heliocentric orbits. They are not mentioned in the bible but if God created all things, then he created those too.

such credit is attributed to evolution and evolutionary thinking but at no time does such evidence prove evolution exists.

As we have said before, proof is for alcohol and maths. But there is 150 years worth of scientific resrearch that provides evidence supporting evolution.

 

[archaeologist]

i made 3 replies to this last night and each time i was unsuccessful due to the repair work being done, though the warning came after i wrote the replies and tried posting.

If it is irrelevant to the truth of evolution then I don't know why you bring it up.

the problem you face is that evolution is infered, credited, assumed to be responsible among other credit giving attribute. there is not one scientific conclusion that i am aware of that actually shows evolution exists or is actually active.

we know God exists and His creative and redemptive work prove that to be true, we know He made all things through His power as scripture is quite clear that HE did it and not through a process, secular or not.

your other problem is you have to deal with the scriptures and changing everything to allegory or metaphors is not dealing with scripture but finding avenues of avoidance.

If you think the method God used to make man in his image is part of the image, then...

trying to turn things around on me and not providing a solid answer just demonstrates you really have nothing to base your position on.

And the fact that some people use evolution as the basis for their philosophy does not change the fact that evolution is a sound scientific analysis of the world God created

it is not sound or God would not say things like: 'the just shall live by faith', or 'follow me' and the many manyother passages that tell His followers to leave the world behind and look to Him.

evolution is not a sound spiritual, scriptural option and that is where you make your fatal mistakes. you assume that science is 100% correct , infallible,incorruptible, and that no discernment is needed.

This is what this thread is all about, asking TE's when did God say to follow science over His word? I have asked for countless scripture from you to back up your position but so far all you have offered i one phrase which is twisted and added into to meet your claims.

you do a lot of tap dancing and make unsupported statements bt other thanthat you have offered nothing that gives credibility to your position and arguments.

thenyou try to distract the argument by focusing on unimportant items in another poster's replies, as an example-- 'quote mining'-- which is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the issues raised.

how i quote is the standard method used in the academic world and there is nothing wrong with it.

I was just showing your attack on evolution based on the religion of the scientists was a groundless ad hom.

i am not attacking the religion or the scientists. i am pointing out the spiritual ramifications and what God has said. you say you are christians yet you look to the secular world when God explicitly says NOT to do that.

so there are no attacks just warnings.

As we have said before, proof is for alcohol and maths. But there is 150 years worth of scientific resrearch that provides evidence supporting evolution.

then you have nothing to offer. that so called 'evidence' can swing many different ways, it all depends on who is interpretating or mis-interpretating it. too much speculation, conjecture, inferrences tend to follow the evolution way of thinking and God doesn't deal in those aspects.

 

[Assyrian]

i made 3 replies to this last night and each time i was unsuccessful due to the repair work being done, though the warning came after i wrote the replies and tried posting.

I hate when that happens, at least it was one of the shorter posts.

the problem you face is that evolution is infered, credited, assumed to be responsible among other credit giving attribute. there is not one scientific conclusion that i am aware of that actually shows evolution exists or is actually active.

we know God exists and His creative and redemptive work prove that to be true, we know He made all things through His power as scripture is quite clear that HE did it and not through a process, secular or not.

your other problem is you have to deal with the scriptures and changing everything to allegory or metaphors is not dealing with scripture but finding avenues of avoidance.

These are three different arguments you have brought up before and were shown that they are groundless. What you have not done is support your claim 'you have not quoted darwin or any other original evolutionary thinker who states theygot the theory from God or where it is grounded in scripture' bringing up three separate anti evolution arguments does not support the irrelevant argument we were discussing. It is still a bad argument.

If you think the method God used to make man in his image is part of the image, then...

since man is made in the image of God, are you saying that God was made of dust before He created the heavens and the earth? how did He get His power then? how did He originate then?

trying to turn things around on me and not providing a solid answer just demonstrates you really have nothing to base your position on.

You should really think these things through. You gave a silly argument that assumed the method God used to create man in his image was part of the image and therefore that God was like that too. Why should God using evolution to create man mean God evolved, but God using dust to create man doesn't mean God was made of dust?

it is not sound or God would not say things like: 'the just shall live by faith', or 'follow me' and the many manyother passages that tell His followers to leave the world behind and look to Him.

So far you have not been able to show from scripture what this has to do with science.

evolution is not a sound spiritual, scriptural option and that is where you make your fatal mistakes. you assume that science is 100% correct , infallible,incorruptible, and that no discernment is needed.

No we don't.

This is what this thread is all about, asking TE's when did God say to follow science over His word? I have asked for countless scripture from you to back up your position but so far all you have offered i one phrase which is twisted and added into to meet your claims.

We don't follow science over God word. There is no conflict between a proper understanding of scripture and a proper understanding of the universe God created.

you do a lot of tap dancing and make unsupported statements bt other thanthat you have offered nothing that gives credibility to your position and arguments.

thenyou try to distract the argument by focusing on unimportant items in another poster's replies, as an example-- 'quote mining'-- which is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the issues raised.

how i quote is the standard method used in the academic world and there is nothing wrong with it.

Using second hand out of context quotes you have not checked would get your work riped apart in the academic world.

i am not attacking the religion or the scientists. i am pointing out the spiritual ramifications and what God has said. you say you are christians yet you look to the secular world when God explicitly says NOT to do that.

so there are no attacks just warnings.

You are using the religion or lack of it of the scientists to attack their science. That is an ad hom argument. It doesn't work because you do accept the science of atheist like Watson and Crick. How is evolution looking to the secular world, but the structure if DNA isn't?

then you have nothing to offer. that so called 'evidence' can swing many different ways, it all depends on who is interpretating or mis-interpretating it. too much speculation, conjecture, inferrences tend to follow the evolution way of thinking and God doesn't deal in those aspects.

Start a thread on the topic and show us a coherent interpretation for all the evidence for evolution.

 

[archaeologist]

Start a thread on the topic and show us a coherent interpretation for all the evidence for evolution

be my guest. i am quite comfortable in this one.

These are three different arguments you have brought up before and were shown that they are groundless

i don't recall anyone showed they were groundless. you still have provided any scripture other than out of context quotes to back up your claim while i have at least quoted gould.

So far you have not been able to show from scripture what this has to do with science.

i have done so many times only to hear, 'we don't know which ones ar allegory and which ones are metaphors'. i have seen nothing but evasive tactics from our side.

JAL did a good one when he said 'i am not going to dignify your post with a response...' in other words, he has nothing to rebut with or to offer.

We don't follow science over God word. There is no conflict between a proper understanding of scripture and a proper understanding of the universe God created.

that is a great political statement too bad it doesn't work in academia. in reality, you do follow science over God's word just by the mere action of adopting evolution as something from God when it isn't.

Using second hand out of context quotes you have not checked would get your work riped apart in the academic world

depends on who is doing the ripping and actually i knew of that quote before i read it again in that book. if you are so hot and bothered by it why haven't you or glaudys posting links to the whole thing?

You are using the religion or lack of it of the scientists to attack their science. That is an ad hom argument. It doesn't work because you do accept the science of atheist like Watson and Crick. How is evolution looking to the secular world, but the structure if DNA isn't?

i would explain it to you but you would take one thing and say that is the door to allow what you believe into the mix. it is not as simple as that.

and if you check previous posts i do recall defining the difference between the two.

 

[KerrMetric]

that is a great political statement too bad it doesn't work in academia. in reality, you do follow science over God's word just by the mere action of adopting evolution as something from God when it isn't.

Only in the minds of non-academics who do not work in or understand the science. Then of course any unsubstantiated personal appeal can serve as fact when needs be.

 

[Mallon]

Only in the minds of non-academics who do not work in or understand the science.

Just to be sure, does that include English teachers?

 

[TomBormat]

I'm posting in the Christian section! Long live openness to all!!!

 

[archaeologist]

Just to be sure, does that include English teachers

i see people who say they are christian love to stoop to non-christian avtivities and break the rules.

God used fisherman, a tax collector, a shephard, and other such humble people. is my profession any lesser or greater than these?

does my profession determine how well i know or walk with God? does my profession determine what God has taught me? or determine what i do or do not know?

remember this, 'vengenance is mine, saith the Lord'

 

[TomBormat]

I'm a teacher too, Archie. More power to you in that.

Annnnnnd, now that I can post here, I'll put this link up:

http://captporridge.com/bb/index.php?topic=506.0

You'll all find that most of this has already been discussed with Archie and that he isn't one to change his mind. More power to him on that score, too.