Frustration with Evolution and Creation Debates

[Raydon]

This natural world came out of the spiritual world. First there was the spirit, then natural.

Why do you believe this? What have you read or experienced that lead you to this conclusion? Is there a chance that your sources are incorrect? Have you read or experienced opposing viewpoints? If so, why did you reject them?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I'm coming straight from the Bible. The Bible can be used as evidence to the past. In fact, Dr. Donald Chittick a physical chemist stated that archeologists use the information that are written on walls when they go out excavating.

 

[Raydon]

I'm coming straight from the Bible. The Bible can be used as evidence to the past. In fact, Dr. Donald Chittick a physical chemist stated that archeologists use the information that are written on walls when they go out excavating.

From WikiPedia: "Physical chemistry is the study of the physical basis of chemical systems and processes. Modern physical chemistry is firmly grounded upon physics. Important areas of study include chemical thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics, electrochemistry, surface and solid state chemistry, and spectroscopy."

What has physical chemistry got to do with archeology? Just because he had a PhD doesn't mean he knows jack about anything other than his chosen field. What exactly do you mean by "use the information written on walls" anyway? What information? Maps or something?

The bible often uses real historic locations as locations for events. That doesn't mean what it says is true. I could write a book that is set here in Ireland using real locations, but the book could still be fictional. In what other way could the bible be taken as evidence, without using the bible itself to show that it can be? That's circular logic.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

That is your opinion. Anyways Dr. Chittick does have interests in dinosaurs and other related fields and he knows a lot of credited scientists that help him. He also has patents on some alternate fuels.

 

[crawfish]

sorry but God speaking and it appearing demonstrates God's power far better than waiting millions of years for all to form.

i can hear the complaints now- 'if God is so powerful why didn;t He just use that power and do it instantly?'

you don't see it and you never will until you let go of following the world.

How true. It's too bad God wasn't powerful enough to make things instantly and had to take 6 days. It would've been much more impressive had he been able to pull THAT off.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

How true. It's too bad God wasn't powerful enough to make things instantly and had to take 6 days. It would've been much more impressive had he been able to pull THAT off.

Wouldn't that be limiting God power and character? I think so. I can never think about God like that.

 

[Raydon]

That is your opinion. Anyways Dr. Chittick does have interests in dinosaurs and other related fields and he knows a lot of credited scientists that help him. He also has patents on some alternate fuels.

Good for him. Now, this thread has gone so off topic now I'm not sure how to continue questioning. Hmmm... ok. You state that "This natural world came out of the spiritual world. First there was the spirit, then natural." I assume this is one of the reasons you believe in Creationism. Let me ask you, why can't evolution have come from the spirit world as you call it i.e. set in motion by god? Is it only because of the bible's Genesis account that you believe Creationism?

 

[gluadys]

Dang! This natural world came out of the spiritual world. First there was the spirit, then natural.

I don't think any Christian would disagree with that, but it fits just as well with evolution as with creationism.

Evolution does not necessitate a philosophy of materialism.

 

[crawfish]

Note: I'm not the one limiting God's power, presuming His purpose or assuming how He did something.

Creationism does that.

To assume that God would find it necessary to leave a detailed account of how he created the universe, so much so that we can discount scientific discovery because the account He DID leave doesn't mention it, is erroneous.

Satan wants to divide us on unimportant issues. Some of us are far too eager to fall into that trap.

 

[archaeologist]

How true. It's too bad God wasn't powerful enough to make things instantly and had to take 6 days. It would've been much more impressive had he been able to pull THAT off.

except you omit God's reasons why he took 6 days. sure he could have done it in an instant but that , like your evolutionary scheme, dis not fit the plan that God had.

if you are going to investigate origins then you have to examine all the data not just physicalevidence for there are factors when studied, tells us how the evidence should be interpretated.

how convenient for evolutionists who skip that part of the process and claim they are honest and objective when in reality they are manipulating the results.

To assume that God would find it necessary to leave a detailed account of how he created the universe, so much so that we can discount scientific discovery because the account He DID leave doesn't mention it, is erroneous

please cite a verse that tells us to follow science over God and faith.

WHY IS TELLING STORIES A LIE!

if it is not true, it is a lie. God would not have genesis 1 an allegory because He would be charged with mis-representation and other sinful acts. then He wouldn't be God.

 

[random_guy]

if it is not true, it is a lie. God would not have genesis 1 an allegory because He would be charged with mis-representation and other sinful acts. then He wouldn't be God.

That seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things. When I tell my kids the story of the boy who cried wolf, am I lying to my kids? When Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, was he lying?

 

[archaeologist]

you miss the point-- you are saying that God told stories to intentionally mislead His creation and that is just not so and calls God a liar and removes His sinlessness.

we know how God did creation and how long it took Him as ALL the bible says the same thing.

you claim it is allegorical because Jesus used parables in the new testament. what you don't realize is that those parables are not talking about creation, they are talking about other topics.

when jesus spoke on adam and other events in the beginning he spoke of them as literal events and people.

you need to compare apples with apples not oranges and apples like you try to do.

 

[crawfish]

except you omit God's reasons why he took 6 days. sure he could have done it in an instant but that , like your evolutionary scheme, dis not fit the plan that God had.

You accept that, but you don't accept that God might have had His reasons for not presenting a detailed or literally accurate view of creation. Smacks of contradiction to me.

if you are going to investigate origins then you have to examine all the data not just physicalevidence for there are factors when studied, tells us how the evidence should be interpretated.

And if physical evidence screams that a Bible verse cannot be literally true, we just need to grit our teeth and say "it's not true it's not true". God is just sitting above the earth with His thumb ready to crush anybody who doubts His bible over the way He has made things seem to be.

how convenient for evolutionists who skip that part of the process and claim they are honest and objective when in reality they are manipulating the results.

How convenient for creationists to avoid tons of physical evidence and claim they are honest and objective while ignoring and altering evidence to manipulate the results.

Things are the way they are.

please cite a verse that tells us to follow science over God and faith.

All four limbs are gone, tons of straw strewn across that floor. You've beaten that guy as much as you can, dude.

i

f it is not true, it is a lie. God would not have genesis 1 an allegory because He would be charged with mis-representation and other sinful acts. then He wouldn't be God.

Whoa! Jesus told stories that weren't true. He was a liar? By your own admission, he is not God. Sounds heretical to me.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I don't think any Christian would disagree with that, but it fits just as well with evolution as with creationism.

Evolution does not necessitate a philosophy of materialism.

Did u combine two of my quotes from 2 different pages? I know when I said "Dang!" that was on the second page. Sup wit dat!

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

If the days in the first 2 chapters of Genesis were supposedly long ages according to some TE's and OEC's, why would God say days in the beginning and then days throughtout the whole bible when He talks about days? Why would we as humans (Different Creationists groups in general) have different interpretations as about the first 6 days of Creation and not question the rest of them?

 

[archaeologist]

All four limbs are gone, tons of straw strewn across that floor. You've beaten that guy as much as you can, dude

not at all. your failure to ground your beliefs in God's word just proves you don not have a spiritual leg to stand on and without God's foundation, you have nothing.

You accept that, but you don't accept that God might have had His reasons for not presenting a detailed or literally accurate view of creation. Smacks of contradiction to me.

wrong again, i don't accept secular man's idea and God's account is accurate or he would be lying. He spoke and it was. can't be more accurate than that.

And if physical evidence screams that a Bible verse cannot be literally true

you assume that science is infallible and incorruptible and that the Bible is fallible and corruptible. wrong on both counts. science is subject tothe fall of man and is fallible, coruptible and so on while the Bible is the Words of God and fallibility attributed to the Bible makes God not God and destroys the message of the Bible.

the Bible is right and the physical evidence is wrong or interpretated wrongly.

How convenient for creationists to avoid tons of physical evidence and claim they are honest and objective while ignoring and altering evidence to manipulate the results.

we discern and know what is of God and what isn't, and we take into account the evil influences which deceive. no,we aren't ignoring we just aren't blindly accepting secular science's fairy tales of evidence.

Jesus told stories that weren't true. He was a liar? By your own admission, he is not God. Sounds heretical to me.

figures you would go to the extreme and mis-represent what i was saying.

 

[crawfish]

not at all. your failure to ground your beliefs in God's word just proves you don not have a spiritual leg to stand on and without God's foundation, you have nothing.

wrong again, i don't accept secular man's idea and God's account is accurate or he would be lying. He spoke and it was. can't be more accurate than that.

you assume that science is infallible and incorruptible and that the Bible is fallible and corruptible. wrong on both counts. science is subject tothe fall of man and is fallible, coruptible and so on while the Bible is the Words of God and fallibility attributed to the Bible makes God not God and destroys the message of the Bible.

the Bible is right and the physical evidence is wrong or interpretated wrongly.

we discern and know what is of God and what isn't, and we take into account the evil influences which deceive. no,we aren't ignoring we just aren't blindly accepting secular science's fairy tales of evidence.

figures you would go to the extreme and mis-represent what i was saying.

If you don't want to face the consequences of your beliefs, then so be it. You hold contradictory views and want to make us believe that it is possible.

The ONLY reason you think the Bible must not really be implying that the sun revolves around the earth is because you KNOW it isn't true - yet, if you ignore the "scientific" evidence we have via telescopes and observation and ONLY rely on the bible, you cannot possibly come to that conclusion. Same thing for a spherical earth. Left to just the bible to judge, you could not think that.

YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, yet you want us to believe that Genesis is somehow "different". Conflicting views. If you truly trusted in God, you would be open to whatever God revealed about those passages, and would have no problem seeing them differently if He led you that way. As it is, you only trust what you're able to comprehend about God's message, and your faith states that He wouldn't work any other way. THIS IS LIMITING GOD.

Your faith is small, brother. It's only as big as your limited imagination.

 

[KerrMetric]

That seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Well look at the source you were replying to. Of course it was simplistic.

 

[archaeologist]

If you don't want to face the consequences of your beliefs, then so be it. You hold contradictory views and want to make us believe that it is possible.

you are avoiding the issue, which is:

your failure to ground your beliefs in God's word just proves you do not have a spiritual leg to stand on and without God's foundation, you have nothing

address this please.

The ONLY reason you think the Bible must not really be implying that the sun revolves around the earth is because you KNOW it isn't true - yet, if you ignore the "scientific" evidence we have via telescopes and observation and ONLY rely on the bible, you cannot possibly come to that conclusion. Same thing for a spherical earth. Left to just the bible to judge, you could not think that.

read what i wrote and try to not mis-represent what i say:

don't accept secular man's idea

the Bible is right and the physical evidence is wrong or interpretated wrongly.

very clear that there is room for science in my world, just not secular man's idea of it. science is a wonderful tool but it cannot be blindly accepted nor put on a pedestal.

i have never told anyone not to do science, just not to follow the world's idea of it and its thinking, theories and conclusions. big difference.

If you truly trusted in God, you would be open to whatever God revealed about those passages, and would have no problem seeing them differently if He led you that way. As it is, you only trust what you're able to comprehend about God's message, and your faith states that He wouldn't work any other way. THIS IS LIMITING GOD.

what an false accusation. i do trust God and He has shown me that evolution does not exist, is not a possibility and is not of Him. i have shown that through many posts, scriptures and the refusal of evolutionists to provide even 1 passage of scripture that supports their view. so far they have not been able to do so, all they have been able to do is point to secular science and its 'evidence' which is not of God.

nor am i limiting Him, Jesus said it Himself, 'ye shall know the truth...' is He limiting God? the literal creation account, accomplished in 6 days without natural processes is the truth, for it falls in line with ALL the scriptures, even the ones talking about faith.

 

[philadiddle]

archaeologist, you say that secular scientists are misled and are tampering with test results. What about Christian scientists? What about scientists like Francis Collins, head of the human Genome project, or Ken Miller, prof of cell biology at Brown university. They are both Christians are are on the forefront of scientific research. Are they tampering with their findings in some way? Is the mapped human genome a scam? Are the similarities in different mammals, that happen to be proportionate to the distance of relatedness, all made up? Just where is this tampering with evidence that you assert happens on a daily basis? Does it happen in scientific fields unrelated to the age of the earth or evolution?

There's one question I'd like you to answer. It was asked but you went around it. Did Jesus lie when He said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds? Please answer yes or no. You can follow up with an explantation if you want but it should start with a simple yes or no.