Bible-Creation-Evolution

[sandwiches]

A TE, in my opinion, is an educated creationist.

And I mean that as no offense to them, but sometimes the truth hurts.

I don't see why anyone would take that as an insult. Or do you feel it's bad to learn about your deity's works by directly observing them?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see why anyone would take that as an insult. Or do you feel it's bad to learn about your deity's works by directly observing them?

The only ones who directly observed God's creation were the angels, who rejoiced -- including Lucifer.

When the Great Noise occurs, as documented in 2 Peter 3, TEs are going to be left to explain why God suddenly stopped creating and started over with a new heaven and a new earth; like someone pulling a page out of his typewriter, crumpling it up, and starting over.

I've asked them before, and still await an answer: If God is still creating, when will He stop?

 

[Research1]

Support each of those assertions with quotes and links, please.

Support yours.

All you are doing is posting nasty replies to me. Look at the tone of your posts, and all you mostly do is split my posts up and respond in rude or sarcastic one liners.

You are taking this too personal and your posts show your emotions, stay on the topic and learn how to debate.

 

[TerranceL]

Support yours.

All you are doing is posting nasty replies to me. Look at the tone of your posts, and all you mostly do is split my posts up and respond in rude or sarcastic one liners.

You are taking this too personal and your posts show your emotions, stay on the topic and learn how to debate.

You are the one who took this off topic. You stay on topic. Your refusal to back up your comments just shows you know you were blowing hot air.

Junior nobody has been nasty but you. You show up to the forums with an obvious chip on your shoulder and you feel the need to take it out on anybody and everybody who disagrees with you. When someone whose been here for less than a month feels the need to start throwing around words like troll at people who've been here for much longer than you and aren't trolls you know something is wrong.

You even have Aveet coming to Sandwiches defense.

Grow up, play nice.

 

[Research1]

^ I see all the Atheist trolls group here together to attack.

And this is why i'm no longer posting here, its clearly not moderated. I'll be in the Christian only origin-debate section from now on.

 

[Nathan Poe]

^ I see all the Atheist trolls group here together to attack.

And this is why i'm no longer posting here, its clearly not moderated. I'll be in the Christian only origin-debate section from now on.

You will be missed here -- by someone, I suppose...

 

[sandwiches]

The only ones who directly observed God's creation were the angels, who rejoiced -- including Lucifer.

When the Great Noise occurs, as documented in 2 Peter 3, TEs are going to be left to explain why God suddenly stopped creating and started over with a new heaven and a new earth; like someone pulling a page out of his typewriter, crumpling it up, and starting over.

I've asked them before, and still await an answer: If God is still creating, when will He stop?

I don't know and I don't know how we should know. Whenever he feels like it, I would assume.

Now, the thing is that even if he is not still creating, I am not saying that TEs are observing as things are being created. I am saying that they believe they're observing what he supposedly did create.

So, the question again, do you feel that it's bad for people to learn from your deity created?

 

[Redac]

^ I see all the Atheist trolls group here together to attack.

And this is why i'm no longer posting here, its clearly not moderated. I'll be in the Christian only origin-debate section from now on.

Have fun.

 

[1611AV]

If one was to read Darwins books, would we read about unquestionable evolution? Or do you think there was a chance he was talking about direct creation by God?

 

[sandwiches]

If one was to read Darwins books, would we read about unquestionable evolution? Or do you think there was a chance he was talking about direct creation by God?

I haven't read his books but was a theist and a scientist. I can only assume that in his books on SCIENCE, he limited himself to such explications as opposed to invoking a deity. I can't be sure though.

How is this relevant to this discussion?

Oh, and you have yet to answer the question I asked you first:
Will you concede the point that there is only one answer to the question of the existence of the universe, as you claimed, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[1611AV]

I haven't read his books but was a theist and a scientist. I can only assume that in his books on SCIENCE, he limited himself to such explications as opposed to invoking a deity. I can't be sure though.

How is this relevant to this discussion?

Oh, and you have yet to answer the question I asked you first:
Will you concede the point that there is only one answer to the question of the existence of the universe, as you claimed, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Gotta go do some things. I would like to discuss this with you. Also its relevant. But one thing I want to stress is we need to get this thread on track because we have some good topics but it is a scrambled mess.

I will answer your question(s) but I would like some answers to my questions as well.

Talk to you later PB&J

 

[sandwiches]

Gotta go do some things. I would like to discuss this with you. Also its relevant. But one thing I want to stress is we need to get this thread on track because we have some good topics but it is a scrambled mess.

I will answer your question(s) but I would like some answers to my questions as well.

Talk to you later PB&J

I'll gladly answer your questions, right after you do mine.

 

[Naraoia]

Support yours.

Which one? I asked you to back up your claims. I can quote myself to prove that I asked you that, if you insist...

All you are doing is posting nasty replies to me. Look at the tone of your posts, and all you mostly do is split my posts up and respond in rude or sarcastic one liners.

How is asking you to back up your claims rude?

I split up your text to make it clear what part of my response belongs to what part of your post. If you perceive that as rudeness, I dare say the internet isn't for you.

And how would you make "please back up your claims" into more than a one-liner?

You are taking this too personal and your posts show your emotions, stay on the topic and learn how to debate.

I didn't take anything personal, and I don't see that my post was even half as emotional as your response to it.

If you want to see me get emotional, wait until someone starts slandering scientists. That I take personally.

(BTW, I note that you didn't address any of the substance in my post. All you did was bounce some tangential requests back at me.)

^ I see all the Atheist trolls group here together to attack.

And this is why i'm no longer posting here, its clearly not moderated. I'll be in the Christian only origin-debate section from now on.

Oh, believe me, it is moderated

 

[Assyrian]

I know you don't -- and I believe that's AV's point* -- you're brainwashed by science.

Do you know anybody who tries to 'cull' evolution 'from the pages of Genesis'?

 

[Assyrian]

The only ones who directly observed God's creation were the angels, who rejoiced -- including Lucifer.

When the Great Noise occurs, as documented in 2 Peter 3, TEs are going to be left to explain why God suddenly stopped creating and started over with a new heaven and a new earth; like someone pulling a page out of his typewriter, crumpling it up, and starting over.

I've asked them before, and still await an answer: If God is still creating, when will He stop?

Whatever makes you think the new creation is God stopping creating?

 

[1611AV]

I haven't read his books but was a theist and a scientist. I can only assume that in his books on SCIENCE, he limited himself to such explications as opposed to invoking a deity. I can't be sure though.

How is this relevant to this discussion?

Oh, and you have yet to answer the question I asked you first:
Will you concede the point that there is only one answer to the question of the existence of the universe, as you claimed, or do you have evidence to the contrary?

So far in this thread, there has only been one answer to the question.
In the beginning ...? My answer to this question is :
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

My question to you is what do you believe to be the answer to In the beginning...?

 

[Tiberius]

You evolutionists don't explore any alternitives to your own dogmatic theory. So this is nothing more than hypocrisy.

Are you interested in learning what creationism is, or are you just here to bash it?

I am interested in science, because science has a proven track record.

I am not interested in anything that cannot be verified. Show me how to verify creationism and I will listen.

I've been waiting a long time, however.

 

[Tiberius]

I have not bashed Evolution, I have asked a few questions to Christians without answers from Christians.

This thread is for Bible believing Christians that also believe in Evolution. Now if that is you, Show me Biblically how you came to the conclusion that Evolution is the way God did it.

If I may quote from your opening post...

Both believers of Evolution without belief in God and Bible believers without the belief in evolution are welcome and encouraged to comment so that we can keep continuity in both sides of the discussion without blurring the Theory of Evolution or the Word of God.

You are quite clear that you welcome participation from believers of evolution who lack a belief in God, so please don't have a go at me for posting in here. Particularly when you yourself invited me to post in this thread! And in the post that prompted you to make that invitation, I did show how evolution can be interpreted in the Bible.

Everyone of course is allowed to participate and share there knowledge. but if you go back and read the thread, you will see that it is all about bashing the existence of God rather than showing why a Christian would believe in evolution, specifically of man but not limited to man.

The call is answered. The stage is yours. Go...

You accused evolutionists of just making it up as they go.

You suggested that evolution should have the answers to the beginning of the universe.

You claimed that until science has an answer, religion is correct, despite the fact that science not having an answer does not invalidate it, and evolution is not invalidated just because we don't fully understand how the universe began.

You said that it takes faith to believe that science will one day have the answer, making it a religion.

You make strawman claims about scientific explanations in an attempt to ridicule them.

You claim that an answer that can't be verified at all is better than admitting that we don't know and should wait until we can find an answer that can be verified.

You claim that evolution can't be observed and it can't be tested, despite the fact that it has been observed and tested many times.

In your response to my first post in this thread, you completely refused to actually respond to any of the points I made and instead made the unsupported claim that evolution is a religion.

You commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

You say that the Bible is more than another book written by people in an attempt to show it is not just another book written by people. You also suggest that anyone who actually reads the Bible can't help but be swayed and convert to Christianity. Many atheists have actually read the entire bible.

You suggest that the Bible is a better source of information about reality than reality itself.

You claim that the Bible will give you the answers, but only if you read it in faith, despite the fact that someone who already believes doesn't need convincing. Also, in your account of the creation of Eve, you ignore the fact that Genesis chapter 1 has man and woman being created at the same time. And you make the claim that if evolution is true, then God must be a single celled creature because he made us in his image, without considering the fact that the passage may not have been meant literally. (Anyway, the bit about God saying that man is made in his image is in chapter 1. Why do you take that bit literally, and yet you don't take literally the bit that says that man and woman were made at the same time?)

You failed to answer Nostromo asking you if it was impossible for you to have made a mistake and Targ asking you if you would cease to believe in the Bible if evolution were ever proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt.

You make the claim that the Bible is correct, yet you refuse to explain apparent inconsistancies in the account of creation it presents.

When Elopez asked you to clarify what the source of light was on day 1, you said you had already explained it, and that 'explanation" was "The light was just light". You explained nothing, you merely made a claim which you failed to support and yet you expected the questioner to be satisfied with it.

When Pgp_Protector claimed that the moon isn't a light source, despite the claims of Genesis 1:16, you claimed that God never said it was, despite the fact that taking only the information presented in the Bible one would not be able to tell that the sun emits photons while the moon merely reflects them. And then you refused to explain your response further, even though you were avoiding the crux of the matter.

You say that neither 1611Vet nor you is an authority, yet throughout the thread you act as though you are, refusing to consider that your point of view may be mistaken. (interestingly, you include in that post the passage, "John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" And yet even thought you have been told about the evidences for evolution [which, coming from the earth is an earthly thing, you refuse to believe], you say you believe heavenly things. The very passage you quote suggests that you should be versed in earthly things before you can understand heavenly things, and yet you routinely dismiss earthly things because they go against what you have already decided to be true!)

You claim that the Biblical accounts of the creation of lights doesn't require any personal interpretation, despite the fact that you have personally interpreted it to be a literal rather than figurative account.

Finally...

You claim that the details (such as which day Adam was created) don't matter to a "Bible believing Christian", and yet you routinely use such details in an effort to support your case.

There you go. i think this shows that you have been more than willing to "bash" the opinions of evolutionists (i really don't like that word but shall use it for lack of a better term) as well as using poor debate form with them.

The ball's back in your court.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Without deflection or dispute. Are there any Christians here that believe in evolution? If yes, can you explain how after reading the Bible, you came to that conclusion.

Example: Was it something the Bible said specifically or just your own opinion interpretation or belief. Your answer is not limited to the example.

I am very interested in a intelligent sincere answer to this question. Thank You.

If a Christian said, "Genesis can be taken literally or metaphorically, as the Bible does not state which is the 'true' interpretation. Since a literal account is at odds with God's own Creation, we should therefore take Genesis metaphorically", would that suffice?

Or are you looking for verses in the Bible that explicitly use the term 'evolution' or describe evolutionary processes? Because, obviously, no such verses exist. The Bible was not written to be an exhaustive scientific textbook.

 

[1611AV]

If a Christian said, "Genesis can be taken literally or metaphorically, as the Bible does not state which is the 'true' interpretation. Since a literal account is at odds with God's own Creation, we should therefore take Genesis metaphorically", would that suffice?

Or are you looking for verses in the Bible that explicitly use the term 'evolution' or describe evolutionary processes? Because, obviously, no such verses exist. The Bible was not written to be an exhaustive scientific textbook.

Yes WC, What I want to know is where in the Bible does it describe evolution in any way shape or form, It does not have to say the word evolution.

But as you have correctly said:

describe evolutionary processes? Because, obviously, no such verses exist.

Which is why I am so interested in a Bible believing Christian to explain how he came to believe in evolution while believing in a Bible that only speaks of direct and complete creation of everything.