"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[juvenissun]

So please explain to us how you came to be from the elements that make up your body? How on earth does Magnesium or Calcium, or any of the elements make up a living human being?

Your question is flawed simply because that is not how evolution works. It is very common amongst creationists to think that evolution allows for a crocoduck.

I don't even know why I take the time to answer to your posts

Evolutionists do not know the answer and do not care.
But every Creationists know the answer.

What was my question?

 

[juvenissun]

I think the question is a fair one for Christians. We are not usually experts at geology or other areas of science. It boils down to a single problem--if a Christian insists on their version of an absolute literal approach to the Bible then they feel must defend it literally, even when it doesn't measure up to the fossil record, scientific facts, etc.
I personally think this is a wrong approach. If the sun and moon were not even created until the 4th day--according to Genesis--why must we insist on literal 24 hour days of creation? What if God merely revealed His creation plan to Moses over a period of 7 days? I think the absolute literalist approach to the Bible is wrong, because it misses the bigger picture.

Because we do not know. You don't have to believe it. But you can not say it is wrong either. Under this circumstances, a literal understanding is a good way.

Why? Because it helps in the consistency of other Scripture understanding.

 

[Naraoia]

Bacteria do not evolve into non-bacteria.

That? All you showed there is that you don't understand evolution, even when it's explained to you at length by multiple people in multiple ways.

I'll reiterate: there is nothing, absolutely nothing we know of evolution that would force everything to evolve into "something else" or everything to evolve at the same rate. Just because some organism once stumbled on a different way of life involving complex cells, the ecological niches that bacteria filled didn't magically disappear.

Remember that one?

Oh, I do. It's hard to forget...

Anyway, if you like, we can start a fresh one anytime.

Go ahead...

Boring.

Since when is excitement a prerequisite for truth?

 

[mzungu]

Bacteria do not evolve into non-bacteria.

Remember that one?

Do take the time to learn what Evolution is before you go saying something as inaccurate as that!

If someone gets a promotion to a higher level in a company, does this mean that his previous position no longer exists? Evolution is all about life adapting and filling in the niches. Life forms adapt to take advantage of resources in order to survive. Adaptation follows the rule of "Function dictates form". An example of this is:

This is a Hummingbird moth:

This is a hummingbird:

They both survive on flower nectar. They both need to have the ability to hover and a proboscis or long beak in order to reach the nectar. This is Evolution at work. Both animals evolved to take advantage of the high energy food source produced in flowers.

Just because a hummingbird evolved to hover does not mean that all other birds ceased to exist. Do you understand what I am trying to tell you?

 

[Split Rock]

Give you a summary:

Evolution has explanations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
That 1 explains A; 2 explains B, 3 explains C, etc.

BUT, 1 can not explain B, C, D, ... etc. 2 can not explain A, C, D, ... etc.

That is what you mean by "evolution can explain everything".
The very strictly confined "successful" explanations can only cheat high school students (and some dumb ones in my 101 class).

You need to tell the thousands of biologists all over the world how "dumb" they are to use the TOE everyday. Strange that you cannot come up with any examples other than "1 explains B but not C" to demonstrate how dumb we biologists are. Thanks for providing yet another example of "I'm not an expert, BUT...." As usual, you guys have nothing to offer but your ignorant musings about subjects you don't even understand. But we should believe that you guys are the guardians of "The Truth," right?

 

[Split Rock]

I think the question is a fair one for Christians. We are not usually experts at geology or other areas of science. It boils down to a single problem--if a Christian insists on their version of an absolute literal approach to the Bible then they feel must defend it literally, even when it doesn't measure up to the fossil record, scientific facts, etc.
I personally think this is a wrong approach. If the sun and moon were not even created until the 4th day--according to Genesis--why must we insist on literal 24 hour days of creation? What if God merely revealed His creation plan to Moses over a period of 7 days? I think the absolute literalist approach to the Bible is wrong, because it misses the bigger picture.
The Bible is a book of theology and teaching first and foremost, and not a science text book. One can believe the stories of the Bible and grasp the teaching without demanding everything be taken absolutely literally. The point it makes is that God is Creator, humankind fallen beings prone to sin, and that God is involved with His creation and humanity. But to use the Bible as an excuse for ignoring facts and denying truth is a big mistake that hurts our credibility with the non-Christian world.
This does not mean we should set aside our skepticism of science or our right to question the facts presented, but faith in God does not demand denial of scientific truth.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the reality of God. We need not fear science. A willingness to consider that Jesus used parables and stories to teach greater truths in the New Testament can be used as a pattern looking backward towards Geneses. Don't fear science, don't fear truth, Jesus is the friend of truth, and we should be as well.

Well said!

Although I do not have any stake in expanding Christianity, I often wonder how many people are actually pushed away from Christianity by creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we should believe that you guys are the guardians of "The Truth," right?

Ambassadors.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although I do not have any stake in expanding Christianity, I often wonder how many people are actually pushed away from Christianity by creationism.

As many as would be 'pushed away' by hearing we are born in sin, and that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and there is none righteous; no, not one?

 

[mzungu]

Ambassadors.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

How would you like a posting in Kabul? The flack jackets are complimentary Ambassador AV or should I say your Excellency

 

[dad]

I think the question is a fair one for Christians. We are not usually experts at geology or other areas of science. It boils down to a single problem--if a Christian insists on their version of an absolute literal approach to the Bible then they feel must defend it literally, even when it doesn't measure up to the fossil record, scientific facts, etc.
I personally think this is a wrong approach. If the sun and moon were not even created until the 4th day--according to Genesis--why must we insist on literal 24 hour days of creation?

Because that is what He says. When He says that this universe will be no more, is that too hard to believe too? That could not take millions of years, because people will live on from this state to the next. (From trib into the millennium the first stage)

 

[Split Rock]

Because that is what He says. When He says that this universe will be no more, is that too hard to believe too? That could not take millions of years, because people will live on from this state to the next. (From trib into the millennium the first stage)

I suppose that "He" = dad. Yes?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Because that is what He says.

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were explicit 24-hour days, or that the '1,000 years' in Revelation is to be interpreted as a literal millenium of approximately 365,000 24-hour days.

 

[Split Rock]

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were explicit 24-hour days.

Dad says so. That is the same as God saying so. Maybe you didn't get the memo?

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were explicit 24-hour days, or that the '1,000 years' in Revelation is to be interpreted as a literal millenium of approximately 365,000 24-hour days.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Let me guess -- every 7th day, we are to rest for 10,000 years and not work?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Let me guess -- every 7th day, we are to rest for 10,000 years and not work?

Your post is not very coherent. First you post a bible verse, and then you ask a question involving a premise that nobody had discussed prior (a period of 10,000 years.)

If you intended to prove something by posting that bible verse, please make positive arguments for whatever it is you are trying to prove.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Let me guess -- every 7th day, we are to rest for 10,000 years and not work?

Well, according to the bible, people did live longer back then.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

We see creationists here claiming to know that the experts are all wrong... even when the creationists themselves are admittedly ignorant of the subject matter. It seems that if you read the bible and have "common sense," that you can critique the experts on stuff you know nothing about. How exactly, does this work?

Here are some examples for those who will claim I am making this up. These are only examples and I am not trying to single anyone out:

Jazer is not an expert on genetics, but he has the ability to "know bull when he sees it" when it comes to genetics. It doesn't matter that he doesn't even know what a gene or a mutation is.

Dad is not an expert on either atronomy, cosmology, or geology, but he knows when what the experts say is an "in the fish bowl, anti-god lie." He sees what others do not when it comes to everything from the distance to the nearest stars to the center of the earth. Not that any of it provides a shred of practical data, of course, but that doesn't matter.

AVET and his pastor are not experts on geology, but they know the earth was created 6,100 years ago with billions of years of "embedded age." It doesn't matter that neither one can tell us what "embedded age" is or how God embedded age, or why he bothered to embed age in the first place.

The list goes on and on. My question is this. If creationists insist that they can critique experts on stuff they know nothing about, then why should we take anything they say about any subject, including the bible, seriously?

I am new here. I believe in evolution and I believe in creation. God created evolution, on 2 sides: planning it and executing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, according to the bible, people did live longer back then.

Er ... not quite that long ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Your post is not very coherent. First you post a bible verse, and then you ask a question involving a premise that nobody had discussed prior (a period of 10,000 years.)

If you intended to prove something by posting that bible verse, please make positive arguments for whatever it is you are trying to prove.

That's alright.

Stand down and let those who know what I'm talking about handle it --

 

[ivebeenshown]

That's alright.

Stand down and let those who know what I'm talking about handle it --

I do know what you are talking about, but your post is detestable. Posting a bible verse with a provocative question is a waste of everybody's time. I have done it all too much in the past. If you want to make a point, make a point.