Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Colter]

I was not trained nor do I feel guilty, but cried out to God and He answered, and took me above the earth and showed me His truth, which I attest is confirmed in His word, the bible. What you have not considered or taken to heart, is God's providence over His word down through history, which no man could do. To consider God so powerless after He has demonstrated His being all powerful...is unbelief.

Here we see the dividing of the goats and the sheep.

God is the Living Word, not the dead words of another age. Besides, Genesis starts at Moses at best. That leaves thousands of years with no "Word".

 

[Colter]

The Creator invented a genetic code - and associated system for encoding, transmitting, decoding - and error-correcting such that it is beyond our technology to duplicate. And this is proof that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large and talented pile of dirt -- and a sufficiently long and talented length of time - filled with improbable just-so stories"???

please be serious!

And BTW - those bacteria have been "observed" for 50,000 generations since 1988 and they remain -- bacteria. (Observations in nature - that would simulate more than 2 million years for humans to reach 50,000 generations)

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

You need to get some new material and stop the straw man practice of putting words in peoples moths for you to disagree with as if they ever said a pile of dirt becomes life. BTW, the dirt beneath our feet was actually once alive (part of life bodies) on an old earth.

 

[Colter]

BobRyan said: ↑
Here again you make Darwin's point that one must trash the Bible to be honest - if they are going to place their faith in evolutionism. Of course I agree that this is the necessary trade for those who choose belief in evolution - because unlike your book Urantia - the Bible teaches a 7 day creation week "six days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" Ex 20:8-11



And you say that in response to the note that Darwin also makes your argument - because you think he was a wizard? Or because you think he was wrong - even when he agrees with you?



We are not talking about murdering Darwin here - we are just talking about his agreement with you.




And by that you mean "Bible" -- so you have an unbiblical faith - when you speak about faith in God and faith in Urantia book - wouldn't you agree?

My argument is that this is the very sort of thing one would need to "believe in" evolutionism.

With all of its 'lamentable' -- "never happened in nature" examples of hoax and fraud - from horse series to claims about whale evolution.

The very sort of "anti-knowledge" characteristics that its own atheist promoters like Patterson - describe for us.

Same thing here, straw man, ---->you<--- brought up Darwin not me, besides he wasn't the first to theorize about evolution and much work has been done since.

 

[Colter]

The DNA evidence is commonly used as evidence. But again it is not proof. Change the DNA and you have a completely different creature. Similarities in DNA mean nothing unless you want it to. This is what evolution does. Claims of similarity only prove similarity. It does nothing to,prove common ancestry unless you assume or suppose it does. There is no evidence that one creatures DNA has evolved into a completely different creature. Common ancestry is a man created hypothesis based on a belief system not actual science.

The fossil record is another scientific farce. It based on a dating system that is so full holes and errors and assumptions it's insane. There are plenty of examples and conditions that do not match the examples portrayed in evolution. The assumption of evolution is obviously evolving from simple to complex. But that is the assumption. Evolution is a hypothesis and thus it is assumed that life evolved from simple to complex whereas there really is no proof of that. Combine that with the problems with dating and you have a recipe for a huge swing and a,miss.

Common traits in embryos mean nothing unless you want them to. The embryo still has the DNA of the creature Its becoming. A human does not have the DNA of a fish and that DNA changes into a human as it developes. Again evolutionists are looking for anything that they can use to support their theory even though it really is no proof. Similarities and interesting things are not proof. It is ASSUMED it is proof of common ancestor when in reality it is not.

The bacteria once again is not proof. Yes bacteria changes to try and overcome the antibiotics. So? We've all seen the adaptation of creatures as they adapt to their environment to survive. We human beings do that. Bacteria is not a human or a dog or fish or bird. It is a completely different thing. Bacteria does not evolve into anything other than the same bacteria with some differences to survive the antibiotics. It's no,proof that we came from monkeys. Unless one wants to make a,HUGE leap.

I believe God created in six days all life. Birds came before land creatures which directly contradicts evolutionary theory.

God's word is true. Man has been proven over and over to be fallible and faulty. God's word stands the test of time. God is true. He is not a liar. Man is.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

There is no proof at all of a singular YEC event, you just want it to be true because they told you God wrote the book that they themselves wrote. You were bullied into it you in turn bully others and live in belligerent denial.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is no proof at all of a singular YEC event, you just want it to be true because they told you God wrote the book that they themselves wrote. You were bullied into it you in turn bully others and live in belligerent denial.

I don't think that's how it works. I'd dare say a God capable of creating the universe is more than able to be sure his word was accurately documented.

I take it on faith God had enough sense to not allow himself to be represented by some mess of nonsense as some see the Bible..

 

[Colter]

 

[Colter]

I don't think that's how it works. I'd dare say a God capable of creating the universe is more than able to be sure his word was accurately documented.

I take it on faith God had enough sense to not allow himself to be represented by some mess of nonsense as some see the Bible..

Theoretically, If God wrote books (Jesus left no writing) then he could preserve it, but holy men wrote and rewrote the Bible books not God.

God allows his children to evolve and find truth, guided by spiritual influences, through living experience plus the ministry of periodic revelation.

Human wisdom must evolve, they don't interfere with it.

 

[BobRyan]

Same thing here, straw man, ---->you<--- brought up Darwin not me, besides he wasn't the first to theorize about evolution and much work has been done since.

I think you have imagine that "straw man" means "something that Colter does not want to hear" --

But that is not what it means. He may not have been the first to engage in guesswork about evolutionism - but he was very clear on what evolutionism does to trust in the Bible - and Christianity. His trash-the-bible comments were not at all unlike yours.

However - that 'attack-the-Bible-first' option for the true believers in evolutionism is much-expected all the same.

 

[BobRyan]

Theoretically, If God wrote books (Jesus left no writing) then he could preserve it, but holy men wrote and rewrote the Bible books not God.

God allows his children to evolve and find truth, guided by spiritual influences, through living experience plus the ministry of periodic revelation.

Human wisdom must evolve, they don't interfere with it.

Which is to say "don't trust your Bible as if it were the Word of God -- rather you should trust evolutionism and the Urantia book".

Which is fine for your own religious convictions on that subject. It also explains your "trash the Bible" response to the Ex 20:8-11 topic here "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE"

What you call a "straw man" is my claim that your opposition to the Bible is the very thing we expect from those who believe in evolution.

====================

Your argument for Ex 20:8-11 has been of the form "how dare you believe in the Bible as the Word of God - better to believe in evolution" - no matter the fraud that "never happened in nature" - used to promote evolution, the "lamentable" fictions inserted in to text books "As if they were true". No matter the "anti-knowledge" element of evolution that is so rank that even the atheist evolutionists have admitted that the ONE thing they DO know about evolutionism is "it should not be taught in high-school".

so now for the wake-up call.

What Chemist, what Physics professor, what student of observable biology says those sorts of things about their own field of study?

none!

 

[BobRyan]

You lack the same proof you claim scientists lack.

Huh? you are arguing that Christians and atheist evolutionist scientists have similar religious convictions that drive their by-faith agendas?

how interesting.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Theoretically, If God wrote books (Jesus left no writing) then he could preserve it, but holy men wrote and rewrote the Bible books not God.

If you choose to miss my point that's fine but again, I feel God capable of seeing to it the writers represented him accurately. And anyone that feels otherwise doesn't have a whole lot of faith in God having any real power at all.

Should be easy to understand but just for you...Say you hired someone to write your biography, would you put up with the writer misrepresenting you? Would you allow all kinds of junk in there that simply wasn't true? Would you knowingly allow or even want to make people confused about what went on or would you want an accurate representation? To allow yourself to be misrepresented wouldn't make any sense at all. And if measly man can easily make sure that doesn't happen, how much more the all powerful God?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Huh? you are arguing that Christians and atheist evolutionist scientists have similar religious convictions that drive their by-faith agendas?

how interesting.

I tell you you have no more proof than anybody else does and this is your response? There is no logic to your statements.

Here, I'll give you a hint.

Think about using evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

Five Proofs of Evolution
Richard Peacock





2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.

.

Ahhh yes - a video of cartoon depiction of evolutionism in action - as "stories easy enough to tell"

And as for the stories 'easy enough to make up' being told about the fossil record --

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

==================

Nice how that whale evolutionism "story" is being debunked. Another proof of the "stories easy enough to tell" that are "not science" - exposed as the junk-science whale evolution story.

 

[Colter]

Which is to say "don't trust your Bible as if it were the Word of God -- rather you should trust evolutionism and the Urantia book".

Which is fine for your own religious convictions on that subject. It also explains your "trash the Bible" response to the Ex 20:8-11 topic here "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE"

What you call a "straw man" is my claim that your opposition to the Bible is the very thing we expect from those who believe in evolution.

====================

Your argument for Ex 20:8-11 has been of the form "how dare you believe in the Bible as the Word of God - better to believe in evolution" - no matter the fraud that "never happened in nature" - used to promote evolution, the "lamentable" fictions inserted in to text books "As if they were true". No matter the "anti-knowledge" element of evolution that is so rank that even the atheist evolutionists have admitted that the ONE thing they DO know about evolutionism is "it should not be taught in high-school".

so now for the wake-up call.

What Chemist, what Physics professor, what student of observable biology says those sorts of things about their own field of study?

none!

Your defence of the (self important) dubious history written by those who killed Jesus is what one would expect from fetishism.

With your "God wrote the Bible" approach, you would have been just as hardheaded towards Jesus in his day.

 

[Colter]

If you choose to miss my point that's fine but again, I feel God capable of seeing to it the writers represented him accurately. And anyone that feels otherwise doesn't have a whole lot of faith in God having any real power at all.

Should be easy to understand but just for you...Say you hired someone to write your biography, would you put up with the writer misrepresenting you? Would you allow all kinds of junk in there that simply wasn't true? Would you knowingly allow or even want to make people confused about what went on or would you want an accurate representation? To allow yourself to be misrepresented wouldn't make any sense at all. And if measly man can easily make sure that doesn't happen, how much more the all powerful God?

But God didn't hire anyone to write his biography, besides, the Hebrews wrote (or rewrote in Babylon) for Israelites not you. To them you are a Gentile dog!

Btw, Satan was allowed to fool the whole world, so I don't know why you think it's impossible for the Hebrews to fool you!?

Do priests molest children?

 

[BobRyan]

Here's something I have seen:

Part of a whale skeleton hanging on display. Vestigial hip bones.

God made that skeleton. Open your eyes!

from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html

Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find

"And in studies where we removed the spleen and then induced a heart attack, we saw a vastly fewer number of monocytes accumulate."

Simply put, mice without spleens weren't able to recover as well.


Neither, it seems, can humans without spleens.

A 1977 study, published in the medical journal The Lancet, followed the health of World War II veterans over 20 years—some with spleens and some who'd lost theirs to war injuries.

The spleen-less men were twice as likely to die from heart disease and pneumonia.

"They knew the spleen played an important role, but they didn't know how," Swirski said.


Dangerous Logic

None of this is surprising to Jeffrey Laitman, director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists.

History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.

"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay."

Appendix Rescued From Biology's Junk Heap

In some cases, life in the developed world—rather than insufficient medical technology—has obscured important functions of vestigial organs.

The appendix, a narrow tube that hangs off one end of the colon, is probably the most famous "junk" organ. But it's turned out to be important even today—in certain circumstances.

"It's hard to figure out what the appendix does when you're studying superclean animals and people," said Bill Parker, assistant professor of surgery at Duke University Medical Center and one of the researchers who exposed the appendix's secrets in a 2007 Journal of Theoretical Biology study.

Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food (interactive digestive-system guide).

The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Btw, Satan was allowed to fool the whole world, so I don't know why you think it's impossible for the Hebrews to fool you!?

The whole world? No, I just don't think God is going to allow anyone to fool me, not via his word anyway.

But God didn't hire anyone to write his biography, besides, the Hebrews wrote (or rewrote in Babylon) for Israelites not you. To them you are a Gentile dog!

The point was he had control, hire or not, but clearly, you refuse to see what I mean and will argue with it endlessly, so that's all you get from me on the subject. I tried...the end.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I keep looking at that Whale skeleton...those two little bones hanging by their little string, and it just seems such a pitiful attempt to me. It's almost sad the desperation it seems to reveal.

 

[Colter]

How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?
Genesis 7:2-3 and Genesis 6:19-20

1. Two (Genesis 6:19-20)--"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
2. Seven (Genesis 7:2-3)--"You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

Did Noah have kinds from all the fossils we find?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html

Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find

"And in studies where we removed the spleen and then induced a heart attack, we saw a vastly fewer number of monocytes accumulate."

Simply put, mice without spleens weren't able to recover as well.


Neither, it seems, can humans without spleens.

A 1977 study, published in the medical journal The Lancet, followed the health of World War II veterans over 20 years—some with spleens and some who'd lost theirs to war injuries.

The spleen-less men were twice as likely to die from heart disease and pneumonia.

"They knew the spleen played an important role, but they didn't know how," Swirski said.


Dangerous Logic

None of this is surprising to Jeffrey Laitman, director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists.

History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.

"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay."

Appendix Rescued From Biology's Junk Heap

In some cases, life in the developed world—rather than insufficient medical technology—has obscured important functions of vestigial organs.

The appendix, a narrow tube that hangs off one end of the colon, is probably the most famous "junk" organ. But it's turned out to be important even today—in certain circumstances.

"It's hard to figure out what the appendix does when you're studying superclean animals and people," said Bill Parker, assistant professor of surgery at Duke University Medical Center and one of the researchers who exposed the appendix's secrets in a 2007 Journal of Theoretical Biology study.

Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food (interactive digestive-system guide).

The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.

Well, that's all well and good for the spleen. I stand by my assertion that those scraps of bone inside that whale's loins are useless. I also stand by my assertion that the muscles your body has in place to wiggle your ears are useless. I also stand by my assertion that the muscles you body has to lift up your little toe are useless.

I also refuse to concede that having a little, tiny use makes an item no longer a valid vestige example. For example your coccyx, clearly a vestige from the days our ancestral species had a tail, might serve as something for some things to attach too . . . . and yet it is obvious that such an attachment is not really needed. So your coccyx remains evidence that there were tailed critters in our ancestry.

Of course, if you think a coccyx is so important you might answer this little question . . . how come every mammal that actually sports a tail doesn't have, also, a coccyx? If its so important, what did they do to deserve being deprived of the coccyx?

Its evidence of evolution.