Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[coffee4u]

Your ignorance of the meaning of certain Hebrew words keeps you distanced from having to deal with and see your error in thinking. It does not say that God created anything for six days. The Hebrew of that passage speak of God 'making' something out from what had been created.

In the beginning - at some time before the first day of this world - God had already created the heavens and earth. Not "made." We do not have the time given for when that occurred.

"In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1​

Genesis 1:1 -God created something out from 'nothing.'

In contrast- The Exodus 20:11 passage you gave, does not speak of anything being created out from nothing. But, rather. Making (asah) something out from what had been created out from nothing (bara).

If you are not willing to learn these truths? It will show something about your attitude towards truth. You should learn these things. For its basic Hebrew translation, and God put this words in the Bible for good reason..

I already asked you twice if you had other scriptures to support your position. I asked specifically if you had more scriptural back up for this original world that you say existed.

As far as me not understanding the Hebrew you are the one who keeps claiming the word destroyed is in Genesis 1:2. When we know it is not.
Yet you take umbrage over the words created vs made between Geneses and Exodus.
That is hardly being consistent.
If as you say the Hebrew meaning is important than you need to stop saying destroyed is in Genesis 1:2.

Yes I know there is a difference between how Genesis and Exodus are worded, I never said there wasn't. My point in quoting that is that the creation took 6 days not 60 million years.
Bara does not always mean 'create out of nothing' and asah does not always mean 'create from existing'.
Genesis and other scriptures like psalms, Isaiah and Hebrews use the words bara and asah interchangeably.
If there was some great difference between the words, they would not be used like that.

If you have found those scriptures I would be happy to look at them, otherwise please go in peace and stop arguing with me over how many creations there are on threads that are not about that.

 

[GenemZ]

I already asked you twice if you had other scriptures to support your position. I asked specifically if you had more scriptural back up for this original world that you say existed.

Please, grind some coffee... (I use a ceramic funnel when I make mine)

And, sit down to concentrate and study.

Don't rush. Don't skim.

Learn something, and then you'll stop acting like I have been saying nothing..

Its an excellent masterpiece of scholarship...
There are other excellent works too!

Yes.. Long before the theory of Evolution entered the minds of secular scientists? Bible scholars were seeing that Genesis speaks of a destroyed earth. Then God restoring it with the new current world we now find ourselves in.

....Link....​

Without Form and Void - Introduction​

.........

 

[loveofourlord]

You should stop, your ignorance is showing.

Ummm what I said is literally the truth, your ignorance is showing by acting like I'm wrong :> Go look up scientific theory and I now know I can ignore everything you say as your too ignorant to know basics of evolution 101.

 

[loveofourlord]

Since the book of Genesis is attributed to Moses, I trust that Moses was given divine revelation about our origins. I trust that God revealed to him what processes were used to create all life and how long it took Him to do so. I trust that everything that Moses wrote down is consistent and reflective of all that was revealed to Him. And because Moses was able to speak to God face to face, he is the closest figure we have to a first-hand account. No one after Moses ever attempts to tell us differently.

But what methods have been used to prove that man, along with every other living thing, have descended from cells? Have those methods been successful at producing birds from lizards or cats from rats?

If we did not inherent mutant genes from our ancestors, then how did they arise?
What fossils have been produced to show and demonstrate change over time?
Even the hypothetical geologic column charts that I have seen show no depictions of anything that could be considered a transitional form.

ummm we get mutant genes from our parents, you literally have hundreds.

Again you don't have to reproduce cats from rats, or birds from dinosaurs *not lizards* just the methods that were used to determine this.

As for birds from dinosaurs, I think this is pretty good evidence. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161208121636-dinosaur-amber-2-super-169.jpg

Explain where those feathers came from on the dinosaur tail if not evolution. Thats not counting the dozens of other fossils with feathers we've spotted over there last two decades.

Explain how all the fossils we find fit within the phyolgenic list. that was determined before they were found. All modern animals and the fossil record fit what we know of evolution explain that. We don't find things that are contradictory to it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ape to man - show me the missing links then we will talk
Wolf and Chihuahua - wolf dog hybrids can be mated to dogs or wolves are of the same species.
Wolf like creature to whale like creature - 5 million years - takes modifications to pelvis, nasal cavities etc.etc - show me how this is achievable on the genome with sexual reproduction.
You pick and choose facts which support your belief. No genome just a bag of traits.


The tree structure is based on the Darwinist prognostications and has been invoked as a rallying cry of atheists. Have you told your fellow evoutionists? Wasn't the memo sent?


One of your fellow evolutionist cited a primrose flower as evidence of evolutionary speciation early on in this thread. Are you saying to "you don't have knowledge to prove me wrong". I heard this before from tongue tied evolutionists.


The proper term is Spontaneous Generation that Louis Pasteur disproved. Abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley "Darwin's Bulldog". Their experiments are related to each other and I think you should read it up yourself. I neither wish to complete your scholarship nor your spelling. Put a spoiler on a Edsel won't make it a Porsche. As an evolutionist should you not be cognizant of Huxley, and not spout unscholarly rhetoric.


What came first the protein or the RNA? What came first the protein or the cell matrix? Life was created in the laboratory and it required 300 alleles/genes. What you say is truly extraordinary! I will check it out somewhat leisurely as these questions were asked 5 years ago or so.

I see that essentially nothing change (based on what you said) that has not been spoken 5 years ago. I see Cambrian explosion has been spoken about which was a verboten in naturalist world. I think we should stop here as I am pretty sure you cannot convince me of evolution. So have a good day.

It's pretty easy to get that on the genetic level changes to pakisetus to whale, It's all just changes to when the genes act or don't act, and their positioning. We already have them on the fossil's we have we have the moving of the nasal passage and so on, pakisetus has the ear area closer to that of a whale then land mammals and so on.

My ability to spell or not has nothing to do with the knowledge I'm giving, or your lack of knowledge on the subject. And no I get what louis pasteur did, do you? You obviously have no clue if you think the appearance of rats and maggots from nothing in any way relates to chemistry forming life from precursors. Before you berate others on spelling might want to check your grammar and your understanding of science. Your obviously talking about things you heard from creationists without comprehending their meanings.

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh and on the tree vs bush, the tree worked as a very basic understanding of evolution, but we now know that bush is far more correct because the animals on the outer edges are just as evolved as each other. It's not like fish stopped evolving after they moved to land.

 

[Religiot]

I'm judging you by your fruit. Someone didn't speak condescendingly to you; in your insecurity, you made them feel bad and extracted an apology, which you prolonged and refused to accept with grace.

In your shoes, if you are a Christian, I'd take a long hard look at myself.

Your accusation is false, and verifiably so, for not only did you fail to read the full exchange the first time you accused me falsely, but after I exposed your shame you've resorted to repeating the blame instead of retracting: your doubling down is merely the act of digging further into the pit you have fallen into.

Your projections of pride stem from the root of your own condition: please stop, for your own sake.

 

[Religiot]

More dense minerals and more dense rock, in many cases, are found at shallower depths than less dense minerals and less dense rock, including gold and silver.

This is not true of sedimentary rocks; moreover, gold and silver are not minerals, but metals.

We don't have to discuss the video if you don't want to. I just get the impression that we are straying from the topic.

My contention is simple: how do you date the rocks?

For some reason we got stuck at superposition. But superposition really has nothing to do with density of minerals or rocks. Density is largely irrelevant with respect to superposition.

That is how they are observed in the strata, by density.

Think about an inclusion for example of a particular mineral. The location of any mineral inclusion in a rock is not based on density as far as whether the inclusion is older or younger than it's surrounding body. The same goes for a dike or sill. Their position in stratigraphy is often not based on the density of the minerals in which they include, but rather is based on their timing of deposition.

You're straying off topic: explain the stratum

And if we are talking about minerals of sedimentary bodies, they aren't sorted by density either.

We are talking about the layers, since the beginning of this conversation...

I can find feldspar above and below copper. Or I can find gold above and below calcite etc.

You continue to confuse minerals with metals--they are not remotely the same...

Superposition really comes down to the simple understanding that lower and deeper layers must form before shallower layers. Else the shallower layers would have nothing to be deposited upon.

That is an unscientific conclusion, and void of even the most basic experiments: it is solely an assumption, rooted in imagination, resulting in the treatment of ignorant conjectures as scientific conclusions.

And with this, we can then begin to observe the succession of fossils on this sequence of deposited layers. Lower layers containing older fossils and shallower layers containing younger fossils.

Logical, indeed, but only so by your faulty premises.

Or we just consider that terrestrial formations have footprints on them. And therefore time must have passed between the deposition of the rock layer below and deposition of the rock layer above the tracks, else an animal wouldn't be able to spend time walking between the two events to make the tracks.

Amazing... --without the knowledge of when the footprint occurred, and without the knowledge of when it was covered, you conclude that it is evidence for evolution--incredible!

And that succession of layers (older is deeper, younger is shallower) and associated fossils (bones and tracks etc.) is what we use to test if evolution is true.

Absurd, truly absurd.

And that's it.

Yes, I know.

Goodbye.

 

[Freth]

This kind of sounds like saying, God created mankind, so why should we bother investigating medicine? Isn't God creating mankind enough? We shouldn't concern ourselves with belief in medicine, as it is just the knowledge of man and is a roadblock in the narrow path to heaven.

Or alternatively, why should anyone bother going outside or on vacation? Why should anyone go to the library to learn? Why should mankind even have a space program? Why should columbus explore the ocean?

Is mankind better off deliberately not investigating creation?

My post was specific to the scope of the creation account and evolution.

"I don't think Christians should put stock in what science says about God's creation. God designed it. Shouldn't that be enough? Why do we have to read more into the creation account than what it says? Why do we have to prove X or Y? The knowledge of man puts roadblocks on the narrow path to heaven. We shouldn't concern ourselves with belief in evolution."
​

I don't think evolution should be something Christians concern themselves about. The creation account should suffice.

I frequent various Christian forum websites. The number of Christians who believe the creation account is figurative, or myth, and not literal is growing;the same for Noah's flood. It's not just creation and the flood—Christians are taking great liberty with scripture, to match their desired way of life, rather than relying on the word of God, which is the truth.

Happy Sabbath!

 

[Job 33:6]

This is not true of sedimentary rocks; moreover, gold and silver are not minerals, but metals.

My contention is simple: how do you date the rocks?

That is how they are observed in the strata, by density.

You're straying off topic: explain the stratum

We are talking about the layers, since the beginning of this conversation...

You continue to confuse minerals with metals--they are not remotely the same...

That is an unscientific conclusion, and void of even the most basic experiments: it is solely an assumption, rooted in imagination, resulting in the treatment of ignorant conjectures as scientific conclusions.

Logical, indeed, but only so by your faulty premises.

Amazing... --without the knowledge of when the footprint occurred, and without the knowledge of when it was covered, you conclude that it is evidence for evolution--incredible!

Absurd, truly absurd.

Yes, I know.

Goodbye.

Many sedimentary rocks are not sorted based on density. Else we wouldn't find more dense rocks resting atop less dense rocks.

To determine relative ages of rocks, I look at which ones are below and above other rocks. It's called the law of superposition and it's how we determine that a fossil succession exists and confirms evolution:

And it doesn't really matter if we are discussing minerals, elements of minerals or rocks. In each case we find examples of more dense overlying less dense.

Only a young earther would deny that older rocks rest below younger rocks, even in instances where foot tracks rest in between the two. Theres no other logical conclusion to make but that a deeper layer was deposited first, an animal walked over it and formed foot tracks, then a shallower and younger layer was deposited on top.

Clearly you aren't interested in discussing the content of the video.

Goodbye.

If any other YECs would like to attempt the challenge, the video still stands.

 

[Job 33:6]

My post was specific to the scope of the creation account and evolution.

"I don't think Christians should put stock in what science says about God's creation. God designed it. Shouldn't that be enough? Why do we have to read more into the creation account than what it says? Why do we have to prove X or Y? The knowledge of man puts roadblocks on the narrow path to heaven. We shouldn't concern ourselves with belief in evolution."
​

I don't think evolution should be something Christians concern themselves about. The creation account should suffice.

I frequent various Christian forum websites. The number of Christians who believe the creation account is figurative, or myth, and not literal is growing;the same for Noah's flood. It's not just creation and the flood—Christians are taking great liberty with scripture, to match their desired way of life, rather than relying on the word of God, which is the truth.

Happy Sabbath!

My response remains the same. Your post suggests that perhaps people ought not to be bothered with investigation of creation. If we decide not to investigate our biology, why stop there? Why not stop investigating the ocean or space or any other part of creation?

 

[Freth]

My response remains the same. Your post suggests that perhaps people ought not to be bothered with investigation of creation. If we decide not to investigate our biology, why stop there? Why not stop investigating the ocean or space or any other part of creation?

It can become your god. As per my previous post, it's happening in Christianity.

 

[Job 33:6]

It can become your god. As per my previous post, it's happening in Christianity.

In your opinion, can these things be investigated without it becoming your God?

When we go for a walk or a hike in the woods, sometimes people want to ask questions and want to investigate creation. What is behind that tree or under that rock? What does that plant smell like?

And I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

Evolution is really just an extension of investigation. What is in the human body? What is in the earth?

And some people can make anything into their own personal God. But I don't think that we should suggest that mankind ought to give up on investigation of creation out of concern over the idea that people might worship it.

Maybe people shouldn't go to Ken Hams creation museum or the grand canyon either. They may worship those too.

 

[Freth]

In your opinion, can these things be investigated without it becoming your God?

It depends on what you're investigating and why. If you're working on advancements in medicine, for instance, yes.

In my mind, it's like asking me, as a Christian, if it's okay to study tarot or witchcraft. I just want to know how to read the cards and how spells work. At what point is it considered having other gods? The same could be applied to evolution. At what point does it become trying to disprove God? What drives the desire to discover evolutionary processes? Is it to disprove God?

Noah and the ark. God chose specific creatures to put on the ark, because the ark couldn't carry every species of creature. The creatures God chose were the ones He wanted to use to repopulate the earth. Whatever processes happened to repopulate the species was God's doing, whether directly controlled or set into motion. God set forth a plan before creation and it is ongoing until the second coming. If that is what you want to call evolution, I'm in full agreement.

When you start talking millions of years of evolutionary processes, it deviates from the timeline the Bible presents. When you start believing in the millions of years it had to have taken, you stop believing the word of God and start believing the knowledge of man.

You're not going to convince me that the knowledge of man, no matter how evidential or fantastical, is going to trump God's word. It's dangerous to even think that way, which is why I said what I said—we shouldn't be entertaining things that call into question the word of God. That is the criterion I would use.

You can disagree with my point of view, that's perfectly fine. I'm not changing my mind on the subject.

Have a blessed Sabbath!

 

[GenemZ]

It can become your god. As per my previous post, it's happening in Christianity.

Not a "god." More like making a safe room to hide away from God. Wanting to get along with the world's opinion, yet wishing at the same time the dignity of being called a Christian.

 

[Religiot]

Many sedimentary rocks are not sorted based on density. Else we wouldn't find more dense rocks resting atop less dense rocks.

To determine relative ages of rocks, I look at which ones are below and above other rocks. It's called the law of superposition and it's how we determine that a fossil succession exists and confirms evolution:

And it doesn't really matter if we are discussing minerals, elements of minerals or rocks. In each case we find examples of more dense overlying less dense.

Only a young earther would deny that older rocks rest below younger rocks, even in instances where foot tracks rest in between the two. Theres no other logical conclusion to make but that a deeper layer was deposited first, an animal walked over it and formed foot tracks, then a shallower and younger layer was deposited on top.

Clearly you aren't interested in discussing the content of the video.

Goodbye.

If any other YECs would like to attempt the challenge, the video still stands.

The very video you posted contradicts your premises--amazing.

Why not just simply provide evidence? why not just simply provide an actual reference that includes an actual experiment that proves your claim?

You posted a video of someone who simply repeats what you believe (with contradictions against your belief [lol]): don't you know, that simply having others that agree with your belief is not equal to evidence that substantiates your belief as true?

Your responses are growing in absurdity.

Your unscientific conclusions do not even account for earthquakes, nor laminations, etc., ad nauseam.

Just be scientific: provide the proof to your claims.

Stop appealing to what others believe about what you believe--be scientific, for crying out-loud!

Stop appealing to others beliefs as proof for yours, it's absurd: just site an experiment or two, and go from there.

 

[GenemZ]

The very video you posted contradicts your premises--amazing.

Why not just simply provide evidence? why not just simply provide an actual reference that includes an actual experiment that proves your claim?

You posted a video of someone who simply repeats what you believe (with contradictions against your belief [lol]): don't you know, that simply having others that agree with your belief is not equal to evidence that substantiates your belief as true?

Your responses are growing in absurdity.

Your unscientific conclusions do not even account for earthquakes, nor laminations, etc., ad nauseam.

Just be scientific: provide the proof to your claims.

Stop appealing to what others believe about what you believe--be scientific, for crying out-loud!

Stop appealing to others beliefs as proof for yours, it's absurd: just site an experiment or two, and go from there.

Both sides are wrong. But, each side can only see the error of the other.....

No young earth ... no evolution from the actual previous creations we have on record in stone.

 

[coffee4u]

Please, grind some coffee... (I use a ceramic funnel when I make mine)

And, sit down to concentrate and study.

Don't rush. Don't skim.

Learn something, and then you'll stop acting like I have been saying nothing..

Its an excellent masterpiece of scholarship...
There are other excellent works too!

Yes.. Long before the theory of Evolution entered the minds of secular scientists? Bible scholars were seeing that Genesis speaks of a destroyed earth. Then God restoring it with the new current world we now find ourselves in.

....Link....​

Without Form and Void - Introduction​

.........

*sigh* I will look at your article later just to keep you happy, but I have heard arguments for the gap theory before.
Surely you already know many people, not just myself disagree with that. I think we could both pull up Bible scholars from both sides for a debate.

Honestly though I wish you could be happy in your own belief without arguing with mine all the time. Especially on threads that are not about this topic.

I am a patient lady but I have had about enough of this. I do not want to put you on ignore as I had to do with some other rude men on here. It would be a shame to not see your other posts with which I am sure there are things we could actually agree on.

 

[Religiot]

Both sides are wrong. But, each side can only see the error of the other.....

No young earth ... no evolution from the actual previous creations we have on record in stone.

Genez, while others here may not know you, I do, and every conversation I've ever had with you, about anything, has always been a complete waste of my time; so please, remember, that I'm not interested. --thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

It depends on what you're investigating and why. If you're working on advancements in medicine, for instance, yes.

In my mind, it's like asking me, as a Christian, if it's okay to study tarot or witchcraft. I just want to know how to read the cards and how spells work. At what point is it considered having other gods? The same could be applied to evolution. At what point does it become trying to disprove God? What drives the desire to discover evolutionary processes? Is it to disprove God?

Noah and the ark. God chose specific creatures to put on the ark, because the ark couldn't carry every species of creature. The creatures God chose were the ones He wanted to use to repopulate the earth. Whatever processes happened to repopulate the species was God's doing, whether directly controlled or set into motion. God set forth a plan before creation and it is ongoing until the second coming. If that is what you want to call evolution, I'm in full agreement.

When you start talking millions of years of evolutionary processes, it deviates from the timeline the Bible presents. When you start believing in the millions of years it had to have taken, you stop believing the word of God and start believing the knowledge of man.

You're not going to convince me that the knowledge of man, no matter how evidential or fantastical, is going to trump God's word. It's dangerous to even think that way, which is why I said what I said—we shouldn't be entertaining things that call into question the word of God. That is the criterion I would use.

You can disagree with my point of view, that's perfectly fine. I'm not changing my mind on the subject.

Have a blessed Sabbath!

At what point does physical reality transform from being God's creation to the knowledge of man? Just as the planet is round, some people used to consider this knowledge of man that ran contrary to God's word. But in reality it wasn't knowledge of man at all, but creation.

And of course, those of the body of Christ who choose not to investigate creation, would end up suggesting that God's word was perhaps the work of satan.