is creation outside of science's scope?

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

an atiest i debated for over a year repeatedly told me that creationists are not out there looking, investigating and soon. i agree with him in that sense as i am often frustrated by the books produced by them since the lack of depth and investigation is appalling.

...

Have you seen this?

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_01.php

 

[archaeologist]

never satisfied are you. you asked for proof, i gave it to you, so you ask for more.

what makes your responses so funny is that you are asking for scientific proof after you have said science doesn't prove anything or that you do not have to prove anything.

though on another note, i have seen no rational argument that has contradicted this thread's title but lots of information which proves it true.

science's limitations has undermined its claims and 'evidence' and people need to return to faith.

 

[theFijian]

please you trot that verse out every time and it does not even remotely refer to evolution. talk about taking out of context and ignoring what all the other Bible passages say.

And it's going to keep coming back to haunt you as lon as you ignore it

well God has already done that but TE's like to ignore Him.

Just like you ignore Gen 1:24 - "And God said, Let the earth bring forth..."

 

[archaeologist]

if you think that Gen. 1:24 speaks of evlution then you are wrong and reading into the verse as verse 25 qualifies what took place and verse 31 is very clear creation was complete after 6 days.

 

[theFijian]

if you think that Gen. 1:24 speaks of evlution then you are wrong and reading into the verse as verse 25 qualifies what took place and verse 31 is very clear creation was complete after 6 days.

You are ignoring the fact that God commanded the earth to 'bring forth', this clearly speaks of God creating through natural processes. You continual ignoring of this fact is noted

 

[archaeologist]

You are ignoring the fact that God commanded the earth to 'bring forth', this clearly speaks of God creating through natural processes.

no, you are clearly reading into the passage:

1.​

​

​

The Lord gave the word; he said, Let the earth bring forth, not as if the
earth had any such prolific virtue as to produce these animals, or as if God
resigned his creating power to it; but, “Let these creatures now come into
being upon the earth, and out of it, in their respective kinds, conformable
to the ideas of them in the divine counsels concerning their creation.”​

2.​

​

​

He also did the work; he made them all after their kind, not only of
divers shapes, but of divers natures, manners, food, and fashions — some
to be tame about the house, others to be wild in the fields — some living
upon grass and herbs, others upon flesh — some harmless, and others
ravenous — some bold, and others timorous — some for man's service,
and not his sustenance, as the horse — others for his sustenance, and not​

34​

his service, as the sheep — others for both, as the ox — and some for
neither, as the wild beasts. In all this appears the manifold wisdom of the​

Creator.

 

[Assyrian]

You should say who the sources you quote are archie.

Anyway, all we have from Matthew Henry here is simply a denial that this is the meaning of the verse. There is no evidence presented for his reinterpretation of the verse nor is there any attempt to establish it from the text.

However,

Matthew Henry

1. The Lord gave the word; he said, Let the earth bring forth, not as if the earth had any such prolific virtue as to produce these animals, or as if God resigned his creating power to it; but, “Let these creatures now come into being upon the earth, and out of it, in their respective kinds, conformable to the ideas of them in the divine counsels concerning their creation.”​

What we do have from Henry is a recognition that our interpretation, the earth itself could form life and that God gave these powers to it, is an obvious meaning people could draw from the text. Henry clearly does not agree, but does not back it up.

 

[archaeologist]

when you start quoting credible sources then y0u can say something.

as i said i do not take your word for it so you better cough up some links to back up your contention or you will be dismissed without thought.

john wesley backs up henry and every other creationist:

1. The Lord gave the word: he said,​

Let The earth bring forth — Let
these creatures come into being upon the earth, and out of it, in their
respective kinds.
2. He also did the work; he made them all after their kind — Not only
of divers shapes, but of divers natures, manners, food, and fashions:​

In all which appears the manifold wisdom of the Creator

there is no room for a natural process and you are just reading in what you want the passage to say. you have no scriptural foundation for your position; if you did, you woul dbe quoting them in context and chapter numbers.

 

[theFijian]

when you start quoting credible sources then y0u can say something.

The Bible is credible enough for me, you seem to prefer the words of fallible men.

 

[Assyrian]

when you start quoting credible sources then y0u can say something.

Come on archie, stop making excuses for not being able to put up a decent argument for you case.

as i said i do not take your word for it so you better cough up some links to back up your contention or you will be dismissed without thought.

You don't have to take my word for it, just look at my argument and show how it is wrong.

john wesley backs up henry and every other creationist:

John Wesley doesn't give any reason why he interprets it this way either. How is that supposed to support you case?

there is no room for a natural process and you are just reading in what you want the passage to say. you have no scriptural foundation for your position; if you did, you woul dbe quoting them in context and chapter numbers.

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures..." God commanded the earth to produce the different species. If you don't want to believe God's word that is up to you.

 

[archaeologist]

as i said you have no credibility with me andif you want me to address your arguments, leave the disrespect, the insults and the personal attacks out.

your failure to provide any corroborration defeats your arguments before they leave the gate. when you learn how to do that, then come and talk to me.

fijian:

The Bible is credible enough for me, you seem to prefer the words of fallible men.

in other words, you will go by your interpretation and you will interpret the bible in a manner that you want and allows you to disobey God .

 

[Melethiel]

as i said you have no credibility with me andif you want me to address your arguments, leave the disrespect, the insults and the personal attacks out.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[archaeologist]

you could do better than that-- like staying on topic, posting a constructive rebuttal.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I think you are brave to address the mods like that.

 

[theFijian]

in other words, you will go by your interpretation and you will interpret the bible in a manner that you want and allows you to disobey God .

No in other words I allow myself to be led by the Spirit instead of fallible men.

 

[archaeologist]

verse 24 of genesis one does not haunt me as it does not refer to natural processes.. that is eisogesis at its best when people do say that.

we know it is eisogesis because no other passage of scripture which refers to creation makes mention of nor corroborrates such thinking.

we also know from the last verse of genesis 1 and from exodus that creation was completed in 6 days, which shuts the door on any other time frame theorized.

it also lets the world know that evolution is non-existent and a creation of evil because there is no scriptural foundation for such thinking and no reference to a time frame slower or longer than what God did in genesis.

saying one phrase changes the whole chapter and all of scripture is not dealing with reality and shows that such a person is looking for an excuse of justification to believe other things than what God says He did.

remember it is not me that you have to give an account but God. you are not insulting me or calling me a liar but God. i just stand with Him.

 

[TomBormat]

I like your dog avatar Archie! What do you think of mine?

 

[theFijian]

Yet you cannot give an answer to what Gen 1:24 means can you archie? When asked you simply hide behind Matthew Henry and other fallible men. "God said Let the Earth bring forth", God commanded the earth to bring forth living creatures and it has been explained to you that either natural processes were used or the earth itself created these animals. Since the earth is not a deity we are left with natural processes used by God to create. Ipso facto. Face it Archie, you bleat on about one verse but then you created a whole thread out of one verse, rather inconsistent. Very few other creationists even back you up.

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by archaeologist
as i said you have no credibility with me andif you want me to address your arguments, leave the disrespect, the insults and the personal attacks out.

your failure to provide any corroborration defeats your arguments before they leave the gate. when you learn how to do that, then come and talk to me.

fijian:

in other words, you will go by your interpretation and you will interpret the bible in a manner that you want and allows you to disobey God .

More excuses.

Followed, irony of ironies, by an insulting personal attack on theFijian.

 

[archaeologist]

i gave an answer now it is up to you to demonstrate credibly why you are right. please show how one phrase changes the chapter and all biblical references to what you want them to read.

i will ignore the insults, the childish behavior as it only makes you look bad.