According to the theory of evolution, how scientifically inaccurate is this Christian sweatshirt?

[Hans Blaster]

What I have noticed and it has failed to be preached is that God told the waters to bring forth life abundantly and according to the scientific evolution of life, Life begin in the waters.

What I've noted is that God told the Earth to bring fourth beast and cattle. Notice that the beast is first which would represent the dinosaurs, huge, ferocious creatures. And the cattle is mixed more like what we have today, tamer.

The difference is God did not tell the waters to bring forth man. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man. God himself formed man from the dust ( chemicals) of the Earth and breathe the breath of Life into him and placed him in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared for man. 1) could that indicate man was formed somewhere else and brought in placed here. 2) couldn't God just use the same design for men that he had for primates just changed a bit of DNA, chromosomes numbers, and genetic traits?

Not sure what you are trying to say about evolution.

That would explain how science has made its determination.

Science does not make its determinations based on religious texts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure what you are trying to say about evolution.

Science does not make its determinations based on religious texts.

Otherwise they'd have to get it right -- wouldn't they?

 

[David Lamb]

What I have noticed and it has failed to be preached is that God told the waters to bring forth life abundantly and according to the scientific evolution of life, Life begin in the waters.

Where do we read that God told the waters to bring forth life? We are told:

“So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”” (Ge 1:21-22 NKJV)

So He told the sea creatures to be fruitful, not the waters.

What I've noted is that God told the Earth to bring fourth beast and cattle. Notice that the beast is first which would represent the dinosaurs, huge, ferocious creatures. And the cattle is mixed more like what we have today, tamer.

He said, "Let the earth bring forth...." He didn't speak to the earth and command it to bring forth animals.

The difference is God did not tell the waters to bring forth man. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man. God himself formed man from the dust ( chemicals) of the Earth and breathe the breath of Life into him and placed him in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared for man. 1) could that indicate man was formed somewhere else and brought in placed here. 2) couldn't God just use the same design for men that he had for primates just changed a bit of DNA, chromosomes numbers, and genetic traits?

That would explain how science has made its determination.

 

[Ophiolite]

The difference is God did not tell the waters to bring forth man. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man. God himself formed man from the dust ( chemicals) of the Earth and breathe the breath of Life into him and placed him in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared for man. 1) could that indicate man was formed somewhere else and brought in placed here. 2) couldn't God just use the same design for men that he had for primates just changed a bit of DNA, chromosomes numbers, and genetic traits?

That would explain how science has made its determination.

Your explanation is plausible, if you start from the position that God exists and can overrule the laws he has previously established. Unfortunately there is no evidence that would meet the scientific standards. To accept this version requires faith. I'm not a great fan of faith, but understand its importance to many people. Faith can bridge that gap caused by the lack of evidence, but without faith there is no reason to accept that supernatural explanation.

Science works on the principle that the universe functions systematically and that the rules of the system can be determined. Thus the supernatural is not something that can be investigated by science.

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet:

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

This should not be construed to label all creationists as racists. Today, many of them have rejected the racist foundations of their beliefs. It was a darker time, one in which Morris felt comfortable exposing his prejudices, trying to fit them into God's word.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

Does scientific evolution say it happened in one day?

I am quite sure you already know the answer.

I sort of thought this thread was about evolution of man versus creation of man.

But I'll go along with you, science teaches that the Earth is an estimated 4.5 billion years old and the Sun is an estimated four point six billion years old, depending on what studies you read.

The Hebrew word meaning day is yom / yome can be used in various ways and the early translators / teachers decided to use it as a literal 24-hour day period. Which has been taught and accepted throughout the ages. No one questioned it out openly that is known of until the 20th century. Which is something that many, many Christians disagree upon, the age of the Earth and whether it was a literal 24-hour day period of the earth's creation. The Hebrew word y o m can also mean a period of time, a span of/in time, or point in time and other usages.

https://godrules.net/library/strongs2a/heb3117.htm

They failed to look at the 24-hour day wasn't created for man until the fourth day when God created the Sun and the Moon and put it in place for seasons, days, years.

From what I believe and other Christians like me the word used for day in the first 13 scriptures is based on a time that God placed on his work and as it is written and 2nd Peter 3:8 a day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day (actually telling us God or nothing he does is subjected to time as man is).

So there are Christians out there who believe that it is unknown the amount of man's calculated time it took for God's allowance of the earth to be fashioned. And they believe that the Earth is billions of years old.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

Not sure what you are trying to say about evolution.

Science does not make its determinations based on religious texts.

I never said science makes this determination based on religious texts.

Evolution states that life started in the waters. Whether of the origin of Life theory of abiogenesis, where life came from none life or panspermia where living organisms came to Earth from outer space. They both state evolution of life whether chemical or biological started in the waters as the Bible said the first life God told the waters to bring forth life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am quite sure you already know the answer.

I sort of thought this thread was about evolution of man versus creation of man.

But I'll go along with you, science teaches that the Earth is an estimated 4.5 billion years old and the Sun is an estimated four point six billion years old, depending on what studies you read.

Science doesn't "teach" it discovers what is. The 4.5 billion year age is a discovery of science.

The Hebrew word meaning day is yom / yome can be used in various ways and the early translators / teachers decided to use it as a literal 24-hour day period. Which has been taught and accepted throughout the ages. No one questioned it out openly that is known of until the 20th century. Which is something that many, many Christians disagree upon, the age of the Earth and whether it was a literal 24-hour day period of the earth's creation. The Hebrew word y o m can also mean a period of time, a span of/in time, or point in time and other usages.

https://godrules.net/library/strongs2a/heb3117.htm

They failed to look at the 24-hour day wasn't created for man until the fourth day when God created the Sun and the Moon and put it in place for seasons, days, years.

From what I believe and other Christians like me the word used for day in the first 13 scriptures is based on a time that God placed on his work and as it is written and 2nd Peter 3:8 a day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day (actually telling us God or nothing he does is subjected to time as man is).

So there are Christians out there who believe that it is unknown the amount of man's calculated time it took for God's allowance of the earth to be fashioned. And they believe that the Earth is billions of years old.

sorry, but I'm not interested in scriptural interpretation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never said science makes this determination based on religious texts.

I'm just telling you that science isn't like religion. It doesn't have "sacred texts" or "teachings"

Evolution states that life started in the waters.

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.

Whether of the origin of Life theory of abiogenesis, where life came from none life or panspermia where living organisms came to Earth from outer space. They both state evolution of life whether chemical or biological started in the waters as the Bible said the first life God told the waters to bring forth life.

Panspermia states that life comes from space, which is not "the waters". There are many abiogenesis models, not all of which involve oceans or large bodies of water.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

Where do we read that God told the waters to bring forth life? We are told:

“So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”” (Ge 1:21-22 NKJV)

So He told the sea creatures to be fruitful, not the waters.



He said, "Let the earth bring forth...." He didn't speak to the earth and command it to bring forth animals.

Difference in the usage of words that have the same meanings. Which boils down to God commanded / God told /God said all means the same thing. The Earth brought forth those life forms by the spoken word of God, which is what he wanted to do. One can even say he seeded the Earth with all of these genetic sequencies, still by the word of God, what he wanted to do.

And I didn't say God had a conversation with the Earth.

I give short summaries of what the scriptures say.

Genesis 1: 20 God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life

Genesis 1: 24-25 God said let the Earth bring forth living creatures after his kind cattle and creeping things and beast of the earth after it's kind and God made the beast and the cattle after their kind.

Genesis 1:26 nowhere does it say God told the Earth or God said let the Earth bring forth or God commanded the Earth to bring forth MAN.

It is well known and accepted by Christians that all things were created by God from the fish, to the whale, to the beast, to the cattle, and man. The difference is God not use reference For the Earth to bring forth man.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

I'm just telling you that science isn't like religion. It doesn't have "sacred texts" or "teachings"

Evolution doesn't say anything about how life started.

Panspermia states that life comes from space, which is not "the waters". There are many abiogenesis models, not all of which involve oceans or large bodies of water.

Okay here we go again about evolution doesn't say about how life started. Panspermia or abiogenesis, depending on which theory you accept is considered the origin of Life and from that origin of life the process evolution began, is that better.

It only takes one process to use water.

 

[Shemjaza]

This should not be construed to label all creationists as racists. Today, many of them have rejected the racist foundations of their beliefs. It was a darker time, one in which Morris felt comfortable exposing his prejudices, trying to fit them into God's word.

I agree, but it certainly damages the commonly used poisoned well arguments about the racism of Darwin, or the association with eugenics.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree, but it certainly damages the commonly used poisoned well arguments about the racism of Darwin, or the association with eugenics.

The irony is that Darwinists like Morgan and Punnet debunked the eugenic ideas of national socialists and American eugenicists like YEC leader William Tinkle.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there are Christians out there who believe that it is unknown the amount of man's calculated time it took for God's allowance of the earth to be fashioned. And they believe that the Earth is billions of years old.

In your opinion, did God create the universe around 13,800,000,000 BC?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't "teach" it discovers what is.

What are science teachers then?

Are you saying they don't belong in our schools?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What are science teachers then?

Are you saying they don't belong in our schools?

Science teachers are teachers, not scientists in the large majority of cases.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science teachers are teachers, not scientists in the large majority of cases.

From AI Overview:

Science teaches us how to understand and explain the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

Science teaches us how to understand and explain the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis.

Your original statement was:
"What are science teachers then?

Are you saying they don't belong in our schools?"

I said that science teachers are teachers. Teachers teachers, scientists discover things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your original statement was:
"What are science teachers then?

Are you saying they don't belong in our schools?"

I said that science teachers are teachers. Teachers teachers, scientists discover things.

QV please:

Science doesn't "teach" ...

From AI Overview: Science teaches ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

QV: post #78

Your original statement was:
"What are science teachers then?

Are you saying they don't belong in our schools?"

I said that science teachers are teachers. Teachers teachers, scientists discover things.