A simple question

[Critias]

No doubt creation is a miracle, if you by "miracle" you mean a wondrous display of God's power and wisdom. But if you mean "divine intervention into nature that supercedes or bypasses normal natural laws," I disagree. However, I don't dispute that by His word the heavens and the earth were created. You must realize at some point in your life that God did not intend to leave us a scientific record of creation in the Bible, and that's why He let His followers testify to the truth of His creating.

I see creation as a supernatural event that where we will not find naturalistic explanations for how everything was created. To look for a natural cause is to deny the supernatural cause, hence the rationalist and the mythical approach.

Science doesn't say either. You see, science is not a person. I'm surprised you didn't realize that. Science is a tool used either by Christians who say that we are studying God's methods or non-Christians who say that we are studying the methods of the universe's formation without a Mind's sovereign purpose behind them.

Science would not exist without people - scientists. The methods were designed and created by people - scientists. Science is an embodiement of scientists who as a whole do not give the Creator credit for creating.

Before the enlightenment, science use to give credit to God. Not anymore. A te here said they would hate for science to go back to those days; the days where God was allowed to receive credit from man within science.

You know, creation is to show a Creator, but science denies a Creator by default. Creation is to be a testamony of God, but science will not speak of God. When you agree that this is how science should be, you agree that God's name should not be proclaimed everywhere. God can be spoken of else where, just not in science.

If you agree that God's name shouldn't be in science, that He should be on the receiving end of the credit of creating, what would you say to God who asks, why shouldn't My Name be proclaimed even within science?

Is science where a Christian should be ashamed of God? Where a Christian will not rightfully say God is the creator, within a scientific paper? Is that too much to ask, is it too much to say, too much credit to give, to the One who does so much for all?

I just want to know why you feel science should be silent on God. I think God should be proclaimed everywhere, in every place. Science is not the exception and has only been the exception since the enlightenment. Some enlightenment!

That's just goofy. Here again we have creationists who must find some way to insuate that TE's aren't as good Christians as they are, that we don't want God as much as creationists. They're God's rules, and He can circumvent them if He likes! And if my point was to distinguish the suspension vs. the regular workings of the laws of nature, tell me a good way to form a sentence with "intervene" and "with the laws of nature". "God intervenes with the laws of nature"? This is because "intervene" is a much more intransitive verb than "interfere". Feel better?

I just asked the question of your choice of words; why you see God as interfering rather than intervening.

Now, I have never said here that any te is less than a Christian. Why is it that you want to create this strawman? I have said nothing about your relationship with God. I just asked why you chose that word.

Seriously, I do not know your heart nor do I claim to. So please, don't try and create some psuedo-argument about me saying something I never said.

 

[Critias]

GeneZ, that is some serious grasping at straws, in my opinion. First off, Jeremiah is speaking about the effects of the Israelites sin's. He quotes pieces of Genesis 1:2 to speak as if the Israelites were destroying all the beauty and order that God had created.

I believe you are taking the Jeremiah passage out of context and imposing your own meaning onto the text to support your view point.

What Hebrew word did this Professor say was used for humanoid?

 

[gluadys]

I do not know where you did that. No message number?

Sorry, page 7 post 70.

I think you are asking the wrong question. For, in a prior creation there was a humanoid creation that the Hebrew uses a generic term used for mankind.

As far as I am aware, the generic word for humanity in Hebrew is adam. And that is the word used by Jeremiah. It is not rare at all. It occurs over 500 times in the OT. And it is used consistently to refer to humans like the people of Jerusalem to whom Jeremiah was speaking, not to some other species of humanoid.

For, in the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. God would not begin with something being disordered and with a deep sense of eeirie emptiness.

Why not? God first had to create matter. Then shape it into things. It makes perfect sense to me that the matter which became earth would first exist in a formless state.


I need a stronger basis for even considering a gap at all.

And I still need to see how it dovetails with the present creation. When did the present creation begin? Where is the geological evidence of a formerly empty earth exist? And where is the archeological/geological evidence of a civilization which preceded it?

 

[GenemZ]

GeneZ, that is some serious grasping at straws, in my opinion.

Of course! You can not see it for what it was.

First off, Jeremiah is speaking about the effects of the Israelites sin's. He quotes pieces of Genesis 1:2 to speak as if the Israelites were destroying all the beauty and order that God had created.

Jeremiah spoke of an utter destruction. He then told Israel that it will not be completely destroyed. That referred to a remnant that would be spared by God.

I believe you are taking the Jeremiah passage out of context and imposing your own meaning onto the text to support your view point.

If you don't understand it, that's what you will think.

What Hebrew word did this Professor say was used for humanoid?

In Stong's its #120. In The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, its # 25A. And, TWOTS shows it to be a generic term used for man.

You act like its so odd for God to have replaced a past creation with this one. Yet, God will do the same thing again.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

This present creation will be remembered no more. GONE! and.....replaced!

That is the way God has always been doing things! It explains why there is no recorded history of past creations. God does not change.

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

Grace and at peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Sorry, page 7 post 70.


As far as I am aware, the generic word for humanity in Hebrew is adam. And that is the word used by Jeremiah. It is not rare at all. It occurs over 500 times in the OT. And it is used consistently to refer to humans like the people of Jerusalem to whom Jeremiah was speaking, not to some other species of humanoid.

Its a generic term. In the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, in number 25A, it states it was used as a "generic term" for mankind in this passage. I first looked it up in Strongs (#120).... Then looked at TWOT's for the more specific meanings. Professor Stan Ashby was no sloutch when it came to Hebrew. After all, he was a Professor of Ancient languages, not simply Hebrew. Harvard did not pick novices to teach there. And, Stan Ashby was a conservative Christian. After retirement he taught at a Bible College. That is where I learned of him.

Why not? God first had to create matter. Then shape it into things. It makes perfect sense to me that the matter which became earth would first exist in a formless state.

"Tohu wa Bohu" describes a scene of eeirie darkness we would picture of Hiroshima after the Bomb was dropped. Darkness and utter destruction was taking place. Everything was in ruin. Jeremiah spoke of all life being destroyed. Man, and animals. And, the earth was shaking in a quiver at its destruction. Hardly sounds like an act of creation to me. But! When one needs an out? I guess that answer will have to do.

I need a stronger basis for even considering a gap at all.

That stronger basis is called the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the truth.

And I still need to see how it dovetails with the present creation. When did the present creation begin? Where is the geological evidence of a formerly empty earth exist? And where is the archeological/geological evidence of a civilization which preceded it?

How can you have evidence of an empty earth? If it were empty? What are you looking for? Fossils of emptiness? The term "emptiness" in the Hebrew describes a deep feeling of emptiness. Despair / emptiness. The absence of God. Eeriness.

Matthew Henry's Commentary presents it as follows....

" Observe, that at first there was nothing desirable to be seen, for the world was without form, and void; it was confusion, and emptiness."

God does not create confusion and emptiness when he creates! He creates order and life!

In Isaiah 34:11, the same Hebrew was translated as follows ...

"But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness."

This does not speak of the beauty in which God originates things. Even Lucifer was created from the hand of God as being perfect in beauty and mind.

Ezekiel 28:14-15 niv

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you."

God does not create things "Tohu wa Bohu." I know of no artist or creative writer that begins with causing chaos and confusion before bringing about his creation. There are always steps of order in building up to a finalized creation.

1 Corinthians 14:33
"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

The above link? The only answer that makes sense. That is... if there really is a God, who does not lie.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Its a generic term. In the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, in number 25A, it states it was used as a "generic term" for mankind in this passage. I first looked it up in Strongs (#120).... Then looked at TWOT's for the more specific meanings. Professor Stan Ashby was no sloutch when it came to Hebrew. After all, he was a Professor of Ancient languages, not simply Hebrew. Harvard did not pick novices to teach there. And, Stan Ashby was a conservative Christian. After retirement he taught at a Bible College. That is where I learned of him.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=nu&number=0120&count=22&version=kjv


In Strong's it is adam. That is the generic term for "human" in Hebrew. It does not refer specifically to a pre-sapiens humanoid. Check the link above for the 22 places where it is used in Numbers. Are the men referred to pre-present creation humanoids? Check out all 527 places where the term is used in the OT. Yes, it is a generic term for humans---but humans of the present creation.

That stronger basis is called the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the truth.

Until that witness is made, I will remain skeptical.

How can you have evidence of an empty earth? If it were empty? What are you looking for? Fossils of emptiness?

Yes. Or rather geological strata with no fossils. Or something that indicates a global destruction.

That is if this destruction occurred at any time in the earth's history. If you are prepared to say it happened over 4 billion years ago, fine. No rocks from so long ago have survived on earth, so no records.

The term "emptiness" in the Hebrew describes a deep feeling of emptiness. Despair / emptiness. The absence of God. Eeriness.

So there was no physical destruction? No loss of life, of men or animals or plants?

Matthew Henry's Commentary presents it as follows....

" Observe, that at first there was nothing desirable to be seen, for the world was without form, and void; it was confusion, and emptiness."

God does not create confusion and emptiness when he creates! He creates order and life!

But that is not Matthew Henry's conclusion. Here is what he says in the preceding paragraph.

1. A chaos was the first matter. It is here called the earth (though the earth, properly taken, was not made till the third day v. 10), because it did most resemble that which afterwards was called earth, mere earth, destitute of its ornaments, such a heavy unwieldy mass was it; it is also called the deep, both for its vastness and because the waters which were afterwards separated from the earth were now mixed with it. This immense mass of matter was it out of which all bodies, even the firmament and visible heavens themselves, were afterwards produced by the power of the Eternal Word. The Creator could have made his work perfect at first, but by this gradual proceeding he would show what is, ordinarily, the method of his providence and grace. ​

Emphasis added.

God does not create things "Tohu wa Bohu." I know of no artist or creative writer that begins with causing chaos and confusion before bringing about his creation. There are always steps of order in building up to a finalized creation.

Asserting this does not establish it as truth.

 

[Critias]

Of course! You can not see it for what it was.




Jeremiah spoke of an utter destruction. He then told Israel that it will not be completely destroyed. That referred to a remnant that would be spared by God.

If you don't understand it, that's what you will think.

I suppose that means if I don't insert my own meaning into the text I won't see your assertion.

In Stong's its #120. In The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, its # 25A. And, TWOTS shows it to be a generic term used for man.

This does not mean humanoid. It means man, such as Adam, or mankind.

You act like its so odd for God to have replaced a past creation with this one. Yet, God will do the same thing again.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

This present creation will be remembered no more. GONE! and.....replaced!

That is the way God has always been doing things! It explains why there is no recorded history of past creations. God does not change.

http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/1.html

Grace and at peace, GeneZ

Revelations talks about the *first* earth and the *first* heaven passing away for the new earth and the new heaven to come. The Greek is very specific and if John believed that this was the second earth and heaven, he would have said so, instead of the first.

 

[GenemZ]

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=nu&number=0120&count=22&version=kjv

And? Look at this page from same resource.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0120

Notice the TWOT reference? 25A? That source gets into the specifics for where words were used, not simply a general word usage reference. The Theological Wordbook of Old Testament [Moody Press]. I purchased that resource years ago because I found concordances are too generic in definitions too many times. And, Professor Stan Ashby made it a point that it was a generic term. TWOT, agrees.

Also, it was added in TWOT that the Hebrew word "Ish", is the specific word that makes man distinct from the rest of the creation. Adam named his female helpmate, "Iysha." Its the feminine form of Iysh. We translate it, "woman." Adam was his name. But Adam was an "Iysh."

In Strong's it is adam. That is the generic term for "human" in Hebrew. It does not refer specifically to a pre-sapiens humanoid.

I did not say it did. I said what was mentioned was a generic term for man. There had been a prior humanoid creation that was "found no more." Do you know of the Bible mentioning any judgement in its recorded history where all men "were no more?"

Jeremiah 4:23-25 kjv

23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.


24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Now, look at Genesis 1:2!

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Same situation! You think that after a great shaking of the entire earth? With no man to be found? With the mountains shaking? That, "without form and void?" Simply meant unformed and empty? The mountains were termbling and the hills were quivering! All life was destroyed! And, you think it not had become wreak and havoc? Like, right after a huge earthquake?

Well, if you want to think that simply means the earth was a clean slate, and nothing was written on it? Be my guest.


Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

God is going to do it again.

Isaiah 65:25 niv

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."


If someone during that time dug up the bones of our present day wolf? Or, a present day lion? And they saw those sharp carnivore teeth? And Darwin's great, great, great, great.............grandson saw it? Here we go again!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

This does not mean humanoid. It means man, such as Adam, or mankind.

Its a generic term. Like apes is a generic term. There all kinds of apes. Like "cat" is a generic term. There are all kinds of cats. The specific Hebrew word for man as we know him today is, "Iysh." And, Adam named his female "Iysha."

Revelations talks about the *first* earth and the *first* heaven passing away for the new earth and the new heaven to come. The Greek is very specific and if John believed that this was the second earth and heaven, he would have said so, instead of the first.

That speaks of something quite different.

"1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

That speaks of a complete replacement of this planet! There is going to be a more like this....

"the first heaven and the first earth were 'blown away'/'passed away'/departed (parerchomai - here describing the result of a Thermo Nuclear Destruction)"

This will not be simply a new creation on the surface of this planet as it had been in the past! After the next new heavens and earth exists for a thousand years (the Millennium) God will melt away this planet all together and replace it with a new creation of a new earth altogether!

2 Peter 3:10 niv
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Now, taken from a fellow church member's notes who attended a lesson on this whichwas taught from the Greek texts, it would reveal something more like this.

10~~But the day of the Lord {technical for end of the millennium} will arrive as a thief {kleptes} in the night . . . in which day the heavens shall completely disappear {through destruction} . . . with a great noise, and the structure of the universe {elements} shall dissolve with fervent heat {description of fission or fusion} . . . the earth also and the works/production in it . . . shall be burned up.
[font=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]{Note: Kleptes from which we get kleptomaniac is the Greek word for a thief intent on stealing only - no physical violence. To steal this way, the thief must come quickly and take the person by surprise - no warning - boom just there!}[/font]

[font=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]{Note: This is a good description of a nuclear destruction of the universe. The energy stored up in the molecules of matter is more than sufficient to destroy the universe.}[/font]

This is now the first earth. With all the mutiple creations it had on it, it will be all be destroyed and removed by nuclear fusion. Then, a second planet will replace it.

2 Peter 3:11-13 niv
"Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

This planet will cease to exist! It will pass away! The first earth will no longer exist.

Revelation 21:1 niv
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,and there was no longer any sea."

That makes a big difference! The first earth was for the time of judgement of all angels and men! When God is finally through with separating those who will believe from those who refuse.... then he will have no more need for this planet. It will be melted away through a thermal nuclear melt down... and replaced with a second earth. The "Home of Righteousness."


2 Peter 3:12-13 niv
"As you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

That can not be speaking about the new earth of the millennium, for it will also be the home of unrighteousness. This is revealed by the final rebellion at the end of the thousand years is up.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

I see creation as a supernatural event that where we will not find naturalistic explanations for how everything was created. To look for a natural cause is to deny the supernatural cause, hence the rationalist and the mythical approach.

Why do you say that? I don't see any Scriptural evidence that says that God created natural scientific laws and then ripped them up and threw them aside while creating the universe. I would say Scripture is neutral on this. You can look at Scripture and say it was supernatural, I can look at it and say it was natural. When we have such a coherent body of natural evidence that points to a logically understandable natural origins, I find little need to press the requirement that it was un-understandable.

To look for a natural cause is not to deny the supernatural cause. When a young child asks where he came from his Christian parents will say "From God." When he grows of age they will tell him instead that he came about as a result of his parents' sexual activity. The fact that there is a logical natural reason (sex) doesn't negate the existence and preeminence of the supernatural reason (God).

Besides, isn't Prof. Humphreys' white hole theory an attempted naturalistic theory? Isn't the idea that the flood was caused by plate tectonics ripping up a flat seabed naturalistic theory? It is only supernaturalist if there is no naturalistic evidence. So isn't creation science wrong to look for naturalistic evidence?

Science would not exist without people - scientists. The methods were designed and created by people - scientists. Science is an embodiement of scientists who as a whole do not give the Creator credit for creating.

I would say that it's wrong. What is science? To me science is simply establishing a system with physical explanations that corroborate identifiable causes with predictable, repeatable consequences. Science begins with the primary assumption that such a system is possible. In other words, scientists don't create theories, they discover them. And if scientists don't create science but discover them, who created science? I would contend that God created science.

Why? Because I believe that God created a world which has logical cause-effect relationships for the purpose of our intellectual mastery, stimulation and enjoyment. He had no necessity to. He could have made a world where gravity is sometimes attractive, sometimes repulsive and sometimes not there at all, and then held it together simply by His Will alone. He could have made it so that metals are soft at some times and hard at others, that radioactive materials decay at wildly different rates according to His mood - but He didn't. Partly to give our created intellects something to play with, and I believe that He also intended to portray a greater truth: that His constancy is reflected in the constancy of the laws of nature.

If you believe that in addition (though I admit it is not Scripturally necessary), then you will see that creation scientists' claims about science being flawed might actually be assaults on the constancy of God. Though I don't need to go that far to find fault.

Before the enlightenment, science use to give credit to God. Not anymore. A te here said they would hate for science to go back to those days; the days where God was allowed to receive credit from man within science.

Name some. When Kelvin studied heat, did he just say "I guess God wants heat to flow from hot to cold" and stop there? He looked further for natural causes. That in no way stopped him from acknowledging the supernatural First Cause that is God.

You know, creation is to show a Creator, but science denies a Creator by default. Creation is to be a testamony of God, but science will not speak of God. When you agree that this is how science should be, you agree that God's name should not be proclaimed everywhere. God can be spoken of else where, just not in science.

Firstly, science chooses not to attribute anything directly to God. It tries its best to keep God out because one cannot quantify God. Take the Grand Canyon lava flow report for example. Why didn't the ICR scientists say this: "Then again, God could have made the lava flow really 4 billion years old, and deleted a few million nucleons from the sample 5 minutes before we examined it which made us find an assumed age of a few million years"? Why aren't AiG's papers chock full of this kind of disclaimer? Because even their science is naturalistic by premise. Which makes it kind of rich for them to accuse the mainstream of being atheistic - when they're playing by the same "acts of God ignored!" rules.

But on a deeper level, science subconsciously acknowledges God. As I said, science assumes rational rules govern the universe - and that can be taken to assume a rational God made those rules to govern the universe. That is a wholesomely Christian assertion. Only that in recent years quantum physical research seems to make a direct assault on this assertion of fundamental rational causality, and if the Christian scientific community knew their priorities and their roots they'd see that the ToE's "atheism" is nothing compared to this.

If you agree that God's name shouldn't be in science, that He should be on the receiving end of the credit of creating, what would you say to God who asks, why shouldn't My Name be proclaimed even within science?

I'd say "creation science isn't really science, so You'll have to look elsewhere." But don't put words in His mouth.

Is science where a Christian should be ashamed of God? Where a Christian will not rightfully say God is the creator, within a scientific paper? Is that too much to ask, is it too much to say, too much credit to give, to the One who does so much for all?

Quoting verses does not a Christian scientific paper make. Like I showed, AiG and ICR scientists operate on the same naturalistic premises as the rest of the scientific world. They're just a bit more shy about it.

I just want to know why you feel science should be silent on God. I think God should be proclaimed everywhere, in every place. Science is not the exception and has only been the exception since the enlightenment. Some enlightenment!

If a Christian car mechanic doesn't quote verses to you when he's telling you how to maintain your car does that make him a bad Christian, or a bad mechanic? Economics, politics, fine art, music theory, and healthcare are also "silent on God" by your criteria. Science seems to have an awful lot of good friends for being an "exception".

 

[gluadys]

Its a generic term. Like apes is a generic term. There all kinds of apes. Like "cat" is a generic term. There are all kinds of cats. The specific Hebrew word for man as we know him today is, "Iysh." And, Adam named his female "Iysha."

Ok. I think the problem is that you do not understand the term “generic”. What do you think “generic” means? Why do you think “adam” could apply to pre-sapiens humanoids?

A generic term is one that applies to all members of a class or group.

“adam” is the Hebrew generic term for the class or group of beings known as “human”. It is used frequently in the bible to refer to human beings of this present time and therefore of this present creation, even under a gap scenario. It applies to Adam and to Eve and to every human man, woman and child. It does not refer to anything outside of the group we currently recognize as human i.e. H. sapiens. But it does apply to every single H. sapiens past present and future of every age, race and gender.

“iysh” refers to a specific kind of “adam”. “Adam” as a generic term means “human being”. “iysh” means a human being who is male. i.e a man, not a woman. “iyshah” means a human being who is female, i.e. a woman not a man.

“adam” is the generic term “human” which includes the two specific terms “iysh”=“male human, man” and “iyshah”=“female human, woman”. It is because it includes any term that refers to specific kinds of humans that “adam” is called a generic term.

The distinction between “adam” and “iysh” is not one of different creations. It is one of specificity. “adam” refers to “human” without qualification. ”iysh” refers to humans with male genitalia and does not include female humans. So it is a more specific term. It refers to a smaller group contained within the group called "adam". “Iysh” is also used in Hebrew to mean “husband”.

There is no suggestion in scripture that an “iysh” (man) is not an “adam” (human), though an “adam”(human) may not be an “iysh”. An “adam” (human) may be an “iyshah” (woman) instead of an “iysh” (man) If you check out the 2nd chapter of Genesis, you will find that the word translated as "man" is always "adam" until woman was created. Then the earlier "adam" who only needed to be called "human" is referred to specifically as an "iysh" (male human, man). That specificity was not necessary before an "iyshah" was made.

The point of showing you the references in Numbers, was to show that “adam” is used biblically to refer to the humans of the present creation, not to humanoids of a previous creation. You can check out all 500 + uses of “adam” and not find a single one that is referring clearly to any human other that the kind of human you and I are.

And actually, the Old Testament never gives the "adam" made in Gen. 2:7 a name. It simply calls him "ha-adam" (the human).

 

[Solomonthewise]

evolution is only a theory, its only fact to those who want to believe it, and you must really believe it to be so passionate about it.

but will you admit that there is a possibility that you could be wrong?

 

[gluadys]

evolution is only a theory, its only fact to those who want to believe it, and you must really believe it to be so passionate about it.

but will you admit that there is a possibility that you could be wrong?

The very fact that you refer to evolution as "only a theory" tells us that you do not know what a theory is in science.

I am not passionate about evolution. I am passionate about the truth.

It happens that the theory of evolution is true. There is no possibility of it not being true, because it is a process which has been verified by many actual observations. The whole of the universe would have to be a lie for evolution not to be true.

I don't believe God creates lies.

 

[Solomonthewise]

All it seems to me is that you dont believe that god has the power to simply say somthing and it is done!

Your saying your 100% sure that your right, well ill feel pity for you on the day you findout that your wrong.

If you were passionate about the truth you wouldnt be a protestant!!!!

You need to stop looking into your "Sicence" and look more into your history!!!!

Dont tell me you already have because if you have you wouldnt be a protestant, you seem too busy arguing you point that evolution happend that you havnt even bothered to look if your even being a proper christian in your beliefs!!

go to the site www.newscientist.com

now tell me this miss all the facts, if evolution only happens on the basis of things being needed then, i can accept why a male has an orgasim, because it is needed, but why does a female when it serves absolutley no purpouse at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GenemZ]

Ok. I think the problem is that you do not understand the term “generic”. What do you think “generic” means? Why do you think “adam” could apply to pre-sapiens humanoids?

We have the Bengal tiger today. And, we have the remains of the prehistoric Sabre Tooth tiger. "Tiger" is the generic term.


The distinction that Professor Ashby made, was that the adam we now have was created in the image of God. The prior one, was not. That is why the prior one was able to have been utterly wiped out as it was, and have no mention of its eternal state. It was a very advanced creation, but did not have the soul like we have.

Jeremiah 4:23-26 niv
"I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.


I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger."

People saw Jesus face to face, and still refused to believe in him. So, if you think I am going to knock myself out and try to make you believe something you hate to believe? I do not think so. No amount of convincing will convince you if you are determined not to believe this. Too much would be at at stake if you did.

There are those out there with ears to hear. I just simply write what I know to be the truth for their sake. So be it.

Hey! Who knows? I might be wrong. But, its not my job to convince you. My job is to correctly present what is truth. We all think we are doing that. That's is what's scary to some. Not me.

John 16:13a niv
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

I realize that idiots quote that verse to justify stupidity. But, the fact remains. I can not convince you of the truth, if it is the truth. Its not my job.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

evolution is only a theory, its only fact to those who want to believe it, and you must really believe it to be so passionate about it.

but will you admit that there is a possibility that you could be wrong?

science and scientists not only admit that they can be wrong, but state that they are wrong and institutionalize looking for the errors.

we seem to have beliefs.
then we prioritize those beliefs, some are more important, some are less. what is interesting is that we also have a passion index associated with each believe, how strongly we believe it, or how essential we find it to be.
the interesting thing is that there seems to be no logical connection between the priority of a belief and the passion with which it is held, should there be?

....

 

[GenemZ]

The very fact that you refer to evolution as "only a theory" tells us that you do not know what a theory is in science.

I am not passionate about evolution. I am passionate about the truth.

It happens that the theory of evolution is true. There is no possibility of it not being true, because it is a process which has been verified by many actual observations. The whole of the universe would have to be a lie for evolution not to be true.

I don't believe God creates lies.

God included the ability for evolutionary change in certain creatures. Just like a chameleon can change colors. God knows all things. He knows all needs before they occur. This is revealed in micro evolution.

If chameleons were rare and only lived in one spot on the earth. If one took chameleons that lived in one environment that was only brownish. And humans caused green vegetation to be produced in that environment. When the ability to change color is finally realized? Was it evolution? Or, something God had already designed in the creature that remained latent all these years?

Just the same, the chameleon does not eventually become a bird. That's where evolutionists are wacky in their ability to take what is subjective conjecture and run with it as if it has to be truth. They need to do that for the theory to work.

Just like God replaced the last world with this present one, he will do it again in the future. It will take place too quickly to be evolution.

Isaiah 65:25 niv
" The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."

This will not be evolution! It will be a new species appearing everywhere at once!

Isaiah 11:7-9 niv
"The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea."

Its going to be interesting when folks alive at that time find in digs bones of the animals we have today. Think anyone will come up with theory of evolution? It will seem so logical if they leave God out of the equation.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

All it seems to me is that you dont believe that god has the power to simply say somthing and it is done!

Well, you are wrong. I do believe God has the power to say something and it is done. In fact, I believe that is exactly how God creates. I also believe science shows us what was done when God spoke, and how it was done. And a big part of that for living creatures is evolution. How do you know that when God told the earth to bring forth vegetation and animals, that he was not commanding evolution?

Your saying your 100% sure that your right, well ill feel pity for you on the day you findout that your wrong.

Not 100% sure. As sure as the evidence permits. And right now that is in the neighbourhood of 99.99% sure.

Why would you pity me if it turns out to be wrong? What do you think would happen other than my recognizing that new evidence sheds new light on the matter?

If you were passionate about the truth you wouldnt be a protestant!!!!

Again you are wrong. I am passionate about truth and I am a Protestant (Presbyterian to be specific). What is it about being a Protestant that says we cannot be passionate for truth? Did Jesus not say “The truth will make you free”?

You need to stop looking into your "Sicence" and look more into your history!!!!

Which history? Church history? Reformation history? Historic teachings of the church? I am probably better informed on these topics than on science.

Dont tell me you already have because if you have you wouldnt be a protestant, you seem too busy arguing you point that evolution happend that you havnt even bothered to look if your even being a proper christian in your beliefs!!

That is what it always comes down to, isn’t it? A Christian who accepts evolution is not a “proper” Christian. I still don’t know what that has to do with being Protestant.

That may be your opinion, but as far as I know it is not God’s opinion. Where does it say that a person’s take on evolution is a salvation issue?

go to the site www.newscientist.com

Thanks for the link. I especially liked this article

now tell me this miss all the facts, if evolution only happens on the basis of things being needed

It doesn’t so your premise is wrong.

then, i can accept why a male has an orgasim, because it is needed, but why does a female when it serves absolutley no purpouse at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see two obvious reasons:
1. Females inherit genes from their fathers as well as their mothers, so why would they not inherit the capacity for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
2. Females who are able to have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] enjoy sexual intercourse more, and seek it more often, leading to improved reproductive success i.e. they are likely to have more children than women who avoid sexual intercourse because it is not especially pleasurable for them. And their female children will also inherit the capacity to have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and also tend to have more children than females who don’t, and so on.


Scenario 2 relies on women having freedom to choose when and with whom they will have sex. Society has often distorted nature by depriving women of that choice. Also today, with birth control readily available, women themselves can change the picture by enjoying sex while preventing conception.

 

[depthdeception]

Just like God replaced the last world with this present one, he will do it again in the future. It will take place too quickly to be evolution.

For having neither a direct observation of the "replacement" of the "last world," nor of the "one to come," it is fairly interesting that you are able to make such definitive statements about how the chronology of these events has/will occur. Perhaps, in these supposed "other" creations, "time" as we know it does not exist, or exists in another way. As you cannot know this for certain, it is a bit presumptuous to assert that anything will happen, and that it will happen at a certain speed.

Its going to be interesting when folks alive at that time find in digs bones of the animals we have today. Think anyone will come up with theory of evolution? It will seem so logical if they leave God out of the equation.

Why wouldn't they come to the idea of evolution? The theory of evolution does not somehow necessitate the denial of the existence of God. It is merely a naturalistic theory (which by definition cannot pursue the explanation of a super-natural event) that attempts to best quantify and qualify the world in which we live with our experience of the same. To assume that evolutionary theory is somehow, by default, a denial of the existence of God is ignorant and shows that one misunderstands the issues involved in the conversation...

 

[gluadys]

We have the Bengal tiger today. And, we have the remains of the prehistoric Sabre Tooth tiger. "Tiger" is the generic term.


The distinction that Professor Ashby made, was that the adam we now have was created in the image of God. The prior one, was not. That is why the prior one was able to have been utterly wiped out as it was, and have no mention of its eternal state. It was a very advanced creation, but did not have the soul like we have.

Ok. That’s better. Now you are saying that “adam” does apply to the present creation as well as a past creation. Earlier it seemed you were saying that “adam” applied only to a humanoid and not to humans.

People saw Jesus face to face, and still refused to believe in him. So, if you think I am going to knock myself out and try to make you believe something you hate to believe? I do not think so. No amount of convincing will convince you if you are determined not to believe this. Too much would be at at stake if you did.

It is not a matter of hating to believe it, or being determined not to believe it. It is a matter of needing a reason to believe it. I am not hostile to unicorns, not would anything be at stake for me if a real live unicorn was discovered. But at the moment I have no reason to believe unicorns exist.

I don’t hate gap theory, nor am I determined not to believe it. I am just trying to learn about it. I don’t see anything at stake whether I believe it or not. But I need a reason to believe it, and to date, you have given me no reason.

Hey! Who knows? I might be wrong. But, its not my job to convince you. My job is to correctly present what is truth. We all think we are doing that. That's is what's scary to some. Not me.

True, and so could I be. It’s not scary to me either.

But, the fact remains. I can not convince you of the truth, if it is the truth. Its not my job.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

So, we have nothing left to discuss. Too bad. I was hoping to find a gap theorist who would at least make an effort. I still see neither a biblical nor a scientific reason to adopt gap theory.