Why do men have nipples?

[46AND2]

It's overwhelming by your interpretation. If you follow Genesis literally, you'll find that same evidence has another explanation. In Genesis it says that God created light, and then on another day created a source for the light. This would debunk the "billions of light years" issue I'm sure you're referring to. A global flood could easily create the rock strata we see today by the depositing of immense amounts of sediment over nearly a year. This could also easily account for the incredible number of fossils we find,considering animals do not readily fossilize. (Especially soft bodied creatures such as octopus and squid.) If you're referring to creation as a whole, remember, God created in a series of miracles, and not by the natutalistic way science views things.
I would also agree with you, if God had not given us the manual of how He created. However, He did. It would've been deceptive and even slightly malicious if He had created in 6 days and then left us with no clues.

Edit:
Sorry, missed the spot about common ancestry. Would it not make sense that if a certain way of creating life worked, that God would stick with it? Also, there would've been an enormous genetic bottleneck after the flood, so the animals of today would've all come from those "common ancestors" if you will.

Only in creationist pseudoscience does creating light BEFORE creating the source of light constitute the debunking of a scientific observation. Seriously, did you re-read what you typed before submitting your comment?

But the light from distant stars is FAR from the only evidence for old age. Like I said, the evidence is overwhelming. There is:

dendrochronology
human y-chromosomal ancestry
Radiometric dating (40+ different methods)
coral dating
ice core dating
fossilization
amino acid racemization
continental drift
cosmogenic nuclide dating
erosion
geomagnetic reversals
impact craters
iron-manganese nodules
petrified wood
varve chronology
stalactites
helioseismology
space weathering
lunar retreats
chalk deposits
salt deposits

To name but a few. AND they all interact and agree with each other. Scientists often use multiple tests to date the same thing, and we get consistent results.

The global flood absolutely could not explain the rock strata, nor the order of organisms within it, or the consistent (deeper is older) radiometric dating of the IGNEOUS rock mixed in with the sedimentary layers. Likewise paleosols within the strata CANNOT FORM underwater.

Scientists can tell when a flood covered an area based on the geology of the area...there is no geology that supports a worldwide flood.

Concerning common ancestry, it isn't JUST the fact that we look similar, or that the DNA looks similar, it is the FACT that there are identifiable patterns that lead to dozens of independent nested hierarchies that all agree with each other, INCLUDING hierarchies built on random mutations/insertions as in ERVs and pseudogenes. Are you saying God intentionally put those errors in our genomes? If he did, THAT is what I mean by a trickster God. If we share most of the same errors that chimps do, and most of the same (but not quite as many) as gorillas do, what are scientists supposed to think about that? It can't happen by chance, so it is one of two things. God is deceptive, or we really are related to chimps and gorillas.

 

[Metal Minister]

Excellent, as it should be. Just don't come here and say that science supports a global flood, a young universe, or "common ancestors" because it does not. You can say the Bible supports that all day long, and say that you believe that with all your energies, and you would be correct, but saying that science supports that is simply not true.

By your interpretation. But as I said, I really don't care anymore. Any atheist here has long made up his/her mind, and no amount of words will change their hearts. I simply do as God has instructed, spread His word, let Him do the rest.

 

[Metal Minister]

Only in creationist pseudoscience does creating light BEFORE creating the source of light constitute the debunking of a scientific observation. Seriously, did you re-read what you typed before submitting your comment?
<snip>

Honestly, after reading this far, I stopped. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, but within two posts you fell back to the old stand by of attack a person to end a dialogue. Good luck, and God bless.

 

[CabVet]

By your interpretation. But as I said, I really don't care anymore. Any atheist here has long made up his/her mind, and no amount of words will change their hearts. I simply do as God has instructed, spread His word, let Him do the rest.

It is not a matter of interpretation, if you understood science you would know this. But of course you are fully entitled to believe God and reject science. Just again don't falsify science along the way.

As far as atheists being a lost cause, wasn't it Jesus that instructed everyone to go after the sinners and not the people that are already saved? Where is that "God of the impossibles" that I so much hear about? Do you really think that God couldn't change a person, and "no amount of words will change their hearts"? I still frequent a Christian church and have done so for a long time, and I don't remember anyone ever saying that.

 

[Metal Minister]

It is not a matter of interpretation, if you understood science you would know this. But of course you are fully entitled to believe God and reject science. Just again don't falsify science along the way.

As far as atheists being a lost cause, wasn't it Jesus that instructed everyone to go after the sinners and not the people that are already saved? Where is that "God of the impossibles" that I so much hear about? Do you really think that God couldn't change a person, and "no amount of words will change their hearts"? I still frequent a Christian church and have done so for a long time, and I don't remember anyone ever saying that.

Never said you were a "lost cause" only that no amount of MY words can change you. That's up to the Almighty now. As an aside, I know science well, and actually find it an extremely fascinating field, so its a little offensive for you to tell me I've rejected science, without actually knowing me. Remember, science can only test and observe the effect of God's cause. Of course its a little strange that you would claim atheism, and then attend church. Although I guess you could be using it as a way to get just enough to be immune...like a flu shot...hmmm

 

[46AND2]

Honestly, after reading this far, I stopped. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, but within two posts you fell back to the old stand by of attack a person to end a dialogue. Good luck, and God bless.

Suit yourself. I used to get frustrated by people poopoo-ing my arguments when I was a creationist. Finally, I realized it was because my arguments were crap. And very, very little has changed in the creationist battleplan over those last 15 years.

You've got your easy out, though. No need to actually address what I had to say.

Good luck to you as well.

 

[CabVet]

Never said you were a "lost cause" only that no amount of MY words can change you. That's up to the Almighty now. As an aside, I know science well, and actually find it an extremely fascinating field, so its a little offensive for you to tell me I've rejected science, without actually knowing me. Remember, science can only test and observe the effect of God's cause. Of course its a little strange that you would claim atheism, and then attend church. Although I guess you could be using it as a way to get just enough to be immune...like a flu shot...hmmm

I don't claim atheism, as far as I know the choice in my profile is "agnostic" (the little question mark). I attend church because I have friends there, and unlike many nasty people in this forum (and you are not one of them), they actually welcome me.

I apologize if I offended you with my comments about your knowledge of science, but quite frankly, nobody that understands science in general (and geology in particular) can claim that our entire fossil record and geologic strata were produced during a single world wide flood. If you want to say the whole thing is a miracle, fine, I won't question you on that, but saying that they were a result of the flood is just wrong.

 

[Johnnz]

This debate arises because of a wrong understanding of what Genesis is saying.

Genesis was not addressed to modern audiences when written. It is not in any way purporting to coincide with scientific discovery. It is a statement of purpose, of God creating His temple/palace, and setting it up with weather, seasons and land to sustain human life.

There are excellent talks on this by John Walton on You Tube, especially the lecture he gave 'Reading Genesis With Ancient Eyes.

John
NZ

 

[CabVet]

This debate arises because of a wrong understanding of what Genesis is saying.

Genesis was not addressed to modern audiences when written. It is not in any way purporting to coincide with scientific discovery. It is a statement of purpose, of God creating His temple/palace, and setting it up with weather, seasons and land to sustain human life.

There are excellent talks on this by John Walton on You Tube, especially the lecture he gave 'Reading Genesis With Ancient Eyes.

John
NZ

Completely agree! My reasoning is that if I were God I would not try to explain evolution to humans 5,000 years ago either.

 

[AV1611VET]

A literal Genesis 1 creation is only possible in one way...God is a deceptive trickster.

Really?

When God gave us Genesis 1, which details what He did, how He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, and how long it took Him to do it; and puts that chapter in the same Book, where He later warns us to be careful of using the rudiments of the world to form our philosophies ...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

... I find it hard to accept that He is a 'deceiver'; the very thing Jesus was accused of at one of His trials.

Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

That accusation still goes on today among those educated in the ways of the world, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the literal interpretation of Genesis is true, then God made the earth and universe look exactly like it is extremely old,

Either that, or He made it old.

... that all living beings share common ancestors, and that the flood never happened.

We believe in a Common Designer, not a common ancestor; and what does the Flood have to do with the creation event?

The evidence for all of these is overwhelming.

Not even close ... you can't daisy-chain man back to cyanobacteria, can you?

If evolution was a digital message, that message would be so intelligible as to be impossible to decipher ... what with the missing links and all; on the other hand, creation is a solid analog message.

 

[Metal Minister]

I don't claim atheism, as far as I know the choice in my profile is "agnostic" (the little question mark). I attend church because I have friends there, and unlike many nasty people in this forum (and you are not one of them), they actually welcome me.

First, I must apologize then. I use the smartphone app,(which shows very little of each person's profile) and made an assumption. Again, my apologies(but get off the fence! Lol j/k )
Though I do wonder what keeps you from believing in the God of the bible? Just a curiosity, you don't need to answer if you don't want to. Though I'm very happy you find such a warm welcome at church! God knows many are very closed minded these days...by that I mean very un-Christlike. I honestly think some would throw Jesus out if he showed up. What kind of church is it? Again, curiosity. Feel free to ignore it if you like.

I apologize if I offended you with my comments about your knowledge of science, but quite frankly, nobody that understands science in general (and geology in particular) can claim that our entire fossil record and geologic strata were produced during a single world wide flood. If you want to say the whole thing is a miracle, fine, I won't question you on that, but saying that they were a result of the flood is just wrong.

nbd, I was throwing out another way of looking at our world, and its age. I don't claim to be any great scientist, but I do love the study and experimentation. In fact I have a thread now trying to see if its possible to truly define "kinds" scientifically. It's admittedly a bit arduous slogging through the mountains of information I've come across, but I think its a worthwhile endeavor. Well, God Bless!

 

[Split Rock]

It's overwhelming by your interpretation. If you follow Genesis literally, you'll find that same evidence has another explanation.

Ad hoc explanations don't count.

In Genesis it says that God created light, and then on another day created a source for the light. This would debunk the "billions of light years" issue I'm sure you're referring to.

No it doesn't. This would not affect radioisotope dating or any other dating method that shows the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

A global flood could easily create the rock strata we see today by the depositing of immense amounts of sediment over nearly a year.

Wrong again. Many types of strata we see today could not have come from a year long global flood. Shale, for example, requires very long periods of time and quiet waters to form. Chalk is made from dead microorganisms and we have deposits that are hundreds of feet deep.

This could also easily account for the incredible number of fossils we find,considering animals do not readily fossilize. (Especially soft bodied creatures such as octopus and squid.)

Wrong once more. The planet would have to have been covered entirely with organisms on top of each other and the seas filled to the rim to account for all the fossils, oil and coal we find.

If you're referring to creation as a whole, remember, God created in a series of miracles, and not by the natutalistic way science views things.

Then he made it look like it was formed by natualistic processes... hence the "trickster" aspect you spoke of.

I would also agree with you, if God had not given us the manual of how He created. However, He did. It would've been deceptive and even slightly malicious if He had created in 6 days and then left us with no clues.

He didn't give us any manual. You are using the writing of MEN and mis-interpreting them to boot.

 

[Metal Minister]

He didn't give us any manual. You are using the writing of MEN and mis-interpreting them to boot.

I'll thank you to not insult the Word of God. Thank you and God bless.

 

[Split Rock]

If evolution was a digital message, that message would be so intelligible as to be impossible to decipher ... what with the missing links and all; on the other hand, creation is a solid analog message.

If evolution is a message impossible to decipher, then how is it that we have done just that?

 

[Split Rock]

I'll thank you to not insult the Word of God. Thank you and God bless.

I do not believe that the bible is the Word of God. I also do not believe you are interpreting it correctly as intended by its authors. Where is my insult?

 

[AV1611VET]

If evolution is a message impossible to decipher, then how is it that we have done just that?

No comment.

Let's not give a certain third party any audience before his time, eh?

 

[Metal Minister]

I do not believe that the bible is the Word of God. I also do not believe you are interpreting it correctly as intended by its authors. Where is my insult?

The insult is saying that the bible is simply a fiction by men. Every word is God breathed just as He said. I don't care if you don't believe, that's your choice, but please do not slander my beliefs with your lack thereof.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not believe that the bible is the Word of God. I also do not believe you are interpreting it correctly as intended by its authors. Where is my insult?

Do we have the Word of God at all? anywhere? in your opinion?

 

[Split Rock]

The insult is saying that the bible is simply a fiction by men. Every word is God breathed just as He said. I don't care if you don't believe, that's your choice, but please do not slander my beliefs with your lack thereof.

I never said that the bible is a fiction. I said it was not the Word of God. Please do not put words in my mouth.