Evidence for macro-evolution

[AV1611VET]

Tho the bible does recommend modesty.

How modest is this?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Source: The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

 

[Astrid]

Why would I do that, I accept theistic evolution. I just have a problem with atheistic evolution. Actually I have a problem with Francis Collins but I will not go into that. As I said, YEC is a shadow and a type of OEC. Paul explains all of that but people have trouble understanding what Paul is saying. Do you think you could write something that people 2000 years from now will understand what you are saying?

Maybe we should get you a program so you know who you are talking to.

Maybe if youd said what you'd chosen from the menu.

But, ok, I made a wrong guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you do not believe in the generations we read about in Genesis?

Huh?

Are you saying that I have to accept evolution in order to accept the lineages we read about in Genesis?

View attachment 350816

Nice.

 

[Ace777]

No, I don't believe that DNA is the language God uses to make us.

So in Genesis 2:7 the Lord God did not use DNA to formed man of dust from the ground? I mean everyone reads the chapter on sex in their science book. Even if that is the ONLY chapter they read. They never had a talk with you about the birds and the bees and where people come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a good look for a Christian, fyi: being seen to take delight in pointing out horrible instances of death to try and play a game of one-upmanship.

Oh, you mean like trying to point out various acts of genocide that God supposedly perpetrated?

Not to mention God being behind miscarriages and other whatnots?

 

[AV1611VET]

So in Genesis 2:7 the Lord God did not use DNA to formed man of dust from the ground?

DNA is not a language.

It is a molecule.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, you mean like trying to point out various acts of genocide that God supposedly perpetrated?

Not to mention God being behind miscarriages and other whatnots?

Not at all. Because I don't see such a thing as a worthwhile nor honest endeavour. It never adds anything to a conversation. Except showing that person citing said acts is very much focused on the morbid. Aka a vulture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all. Because I don't see such a thing as a worthwhile nor honest endeavour.

Show me where you railed against them, like you do me.

It never adds anything to a conversation.

Why are you telling ME this?

Except showing that person citing said acts is very much focused on the morbid. Aka a vulture.

LOL -- okay.

 

[Ace777]

Are you saying that I have to accept evolution in order to accept the lineages we read about in Genesis?

We are talking about the word "Generations" in the Bible. I do not see any difference between generations and genealogy. They are both talking about the same thing. Jesus was fully man. He evolved from Adam in Genesis chapter two.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show me where you railed against them, like you do me.

Why should I? You're the one who keeps bringing up disasters in history and saying "LOOK AT WHAT SCIENCE DID!"

Why are you telling ME this?

Because you're the one who keeps bringing up disasters in threads which have nothing to do with them.

LOL -- okay.

Thus the vulture speaks.

 

[Ace777]

DNA is not a language.

So should I thrown my books away on how DNA is the language of God? My wife would love it is I gave away all of my books.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are talking about the word "Generations" in the Bible. I do not see any difference between generations and genealogy. They are both talking about the same thing. Jesus was fully man. He evolved from Adam in Genesis chapter two.

He "evolved from Adam"?

That's quite a way of putting it.

Microevolution is not the same as macroevolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should I? You're the one who keeps bringing up disasters in history and saying "LOOK AT WHAT SCIENCE DID!"

Why do I do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

So should I thrown my books away on how DNA is the language of God? My wife would love it is I gave away all of my books.

Put it right here, chief:

I like to title this picture: YESTERDAY'S SCIENCE.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do I do that?

Why do you? No-one is under any delusion that science can't be used for bad things, and the Titanic is really a dumb case of you trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong since science had nothing do with the fact that the Titanic wouldn't have sunk if it wasn't hit in just the right way to flood all of its water tight compartments in the way they were flooded versus the way the designers hoped the compartments would get flooded and still keep the ship afloat.

 

[Ace777]

Microevolution is not the same as macroevolution.

Is that the point you are trying to make? I thought you were saying God does not use DNA to make Adam from the dust of the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you? No-one is under any delusion that science can't be used for bad things, and the Titanic is really a dumb case of you trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong since science had nothing do with the fact that the Titanic wouldn't have sunk if it wasn't hit in just the right way to flood all of its water tight compartments in the way they were flooded versus the way the designers hoped the compartments would get flooded and still keep the ship afloat.

Remember though:

Professionals built the Titanic.

Amateurs built the Ark.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Remember though:

Professionals built the Titanic.

Amateurs built the Ark.

I'll repeat myself:

Why do you? No-one is under any delusion that science can't be used for bad things, and the Titanic is really a dumb case of you trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong since science had nothing do with the fact that the Titanic wouldn't have sunk if it wasn't hit in just the right way to flood all of its water tight compartments in the way they were flooded versus the way the designers hoped the compartments would get flooded and still keep the ship afloat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the point you are trying to make? I thought you were saying God does not use DNA to make Adam from the dust of the earth.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I believe God took the dust of the earth and rearranged its atoms to make Adam.

Some like to claim that dust has more silicon than humans.

That's why I say that.

 

[Ace777]

I like to title this picture: YESTERDAY'S SCIENCE.

Actually that is not accurate. Today's Science adds to what we knew. It does not replace it. So you do not like creation science, you want me to throw Francis Collins away. They want me to throw Jonathan Cahn away. What about Sinclair Lewis or Billy Graham or Pat Robertson or David Wilkerson. Should I throw all of their books away also? How about Bishop Ussher, should I throw that book away also?