Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[ViaCrucis]

This is why:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

- St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book I.20.39

The great doctor of the Church has obviously been duped by the modern day evilutionismists, I mean that's the only explanation here--evilutionismists traveled back in time, using their time travel devices which they invented by "science falsely so called", and then convinced Augustine not to believe his King James Bible, which he totally had, because English wasn't a funny form of German spoken by heathen tribes of Angles and Saxons in northern Germania, but was totally around then.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hoghead1]

According to Genesis ch. 1 it already existed, "and the earth was a formless waste". The earth is already present before the act of creation, God takes the formless earth and then shapes it, molds it.

Where did you get that the earth didn't exist a week before? Genesis doesn't tell us about how the earth came to be, but tells us how God took the formless earth and fashioned it for His purposes. The Hebrew word בָּרָא means to form, to shape; literally to cut, to carve, or even to "make fat". What it doesn't say, in Genesis, is that God created the earth ex nihilo; that's not what Genesis says, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo isn't based on Genesis. That doesn't mean that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is wrong (I believe in it) but it's not a doctrine based on Genesis which doesn't say such a thing.

-CryptoLutheran

Genesis is very ambiguous here. On one hand, it might well be affirming creation ex nihilo. On the other hand, no. The was the opening reds, it is hard to tell if God created a kind of formless chaos from nothing and then went to work on that,or whether God just started with some preexistent chaos.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Then stop talking and show us your proof.

Science doesn't deal in proofs. It follows the evidence to a logical conclusion and it is falsifiable.

Where would you like to start? Comparative anatomy, fossil record, embryology, lab and nature experiments, genetics & DNA? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from several independent lines of study. The cool thing about facts is that they are still facts regardless if you accept them or not.

 

[46AND2]

Need examples of what you mean so I know exactly what you mean.

Experiment/challenge to anyone here:

Start reading at Genesis 1:1 and tell us at what verse we have to stop believing God meant exactly what he said and why.

If I were a Christian, and believed that the Bible really was God's word, I'd come to the conclusion that the Bible should not be taken absolutely literally from the very first verse. Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.

My reasons: the earth was quite clearly not created "in the beginning." We know this by observing and measuring "his creation."

 

[46AND2]

On most subjects I stand opposed to atheists, but on the subject of evolution your argument has more merit than that of the T.E. You don't try to twist and distort the Bible to conform with evolution. Rather, you reject it outright, which is the more honest approach. The intelligent mind cannot hold two contradictory beliefs. To try and conform to evolution the T.E. has to reject so much of the Scripture there is some question as to whether he believes anything at all.

I don't find anything dishonest about their approach at all. They can see the science, understand it, and come to the conclusion that the Bible MUST NOT HAVE BEEN intended to be read in the literal creationist view. So, then if I still were to believe that the Bible is the word of god, it would be my job to try to understand the real meaning of his words. What literary devices may have been used? What other meanings could some words have? How influential was the current culture at the time in his writings? Do we understand the nuances of a form of hebrew which nobody speaks anymore?

The problem you have is what you construe to be evidence. If you demand absolute proof you will not be satisfied.

I absolutely do not demand absolute proof. I don't even think there is such thing. On the contrary, it is creationists who consistently ask for "proof." What I require of evidence is something or somethings which are sufficient to overcome my current level of skepticism. This holds with all things.

Though God is the one absolute in the universe, He does not prove Himself because we are to come to Him on faith. Faith is hard, but the rewards are out of this world..

Faith is not something one can have by choice. I can't choose to have faith that santa claus is real. I can't choose to have faith in leprechauns. The information and stimuli to which I have been exposed are either convincing or they are not. I have no control over whether that input is sufficient to convince me of something or not.

So here you have evolution; a universe coming about by means unexplainable to science bringing forth a first life that is unexplainable to science that somehow finds something to eat though it is alone on the planet and then encounters something which forces it to evolve; a hard thing to happen when you are the only species on the planet. So then copy errors somehow implant characteristics that never previously existed into this solitary being and it emerges from the sludge to become the progenitor of plants and animals alike.

I know that this description of evolution has been shown to be fallacious to you. So why do you continue to use it? Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came about. Is has nothing to do with how life began. I'll tell you why you continue to use it: because you know that it is something which science can't explain yet, so you try to tack on as much doubt as absolutely possible when it comes to evolution.

It REALLY doesn't matter if YOU think that abiogenesis and the big bang should be part of the argument concerning evolution. The FACT is that supporters of evolution DON'T. And this is key, because it makes your entire argument a STRAWMAN. You are trying to defeat an argument WHICH HASN'T EVEN BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, and NONE OF US SUPPORT. So congratulations, you beat that strawman to a pulp. Too bad it means nothing.

If I wrote a story like this and presented it to a general audience it would never sell because it's too outlandish.

Of course it is. Because it is your fictitious strawman, which nobody, neither evolutionist nor creationist, support.

The competing story is a magnificent God who creates the heavens and the earth and gives man the opportunity to serve or to sin. Man, being the free thinking rebel, decides to sin and the perfect world is sullied. Man and his descendants have the curse of death upon them... but suddenly the Son of God offers them eternal life. Now we know not only how we came about, but why. Now not only does life make more sense but it has meaning. Truly, this is a superior story.

You think that makes sense? It is utterly illogical. A god with foreknowledge and omnipotence creates a universe exactly how he wants, right? So, then he blames his creations for doing the exact thing he created them to do; it's somehow their fault? The "Son" of God? How does a god procreate? But wait, it gets worse. Not only does he have a son, he and the son are the same? Wha?

And no, we DON'T know why we came about. What meaning does a finite creation have to an infinite god? What makes sense to me is that infinitesimally small period of his existence would be less significant to him, than a femtosecond is to you.

All of us who know the Lord came from the fallen part of man who previously rejected Him. The atheist is not the enlightened one. Doubting and rejection authority is our nature. True enlightenment come when you encounter the Lord and invite Him into your life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The fact that evolution is correct does not "disprove the Bible". Most Christians probably accept reality. Creationism is mostly a disease of the U.S. and a couple of backward countries. And vague threats about your make believe friend are not going to convince anyone. Tell me how seriously do you take Muslims when they threaten you?

Not my threats, just Promises from God so. How seriously you take that is up to you. And of course evolution goes against the creation of the Bible...what an odd claim you make.

The simple fact of the matter is that life evolved. There never was an Adam and Eve, but that does not refute the important message of the Bible

So there ya' go, you're already stepping all over what you just claimed wasn't true. It goes against the Bible....period

You would probably have to educate yourself a bit in the sciences before you could understand the evidence. By the way, you showed that you are fairly naive about science. Properly speaking science does not "prove" anything. It is much like a court of law where one "proves" something beyond a reasonable doubt. And no murder case had a tenth of the evidence that the theory of evolution has. So if you are comfortable with courts finding people guilty of various crimes that they committed then you should be comfortable with the fact of evolution.

And after all that, still no proof. That's what I thought.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not my threats, just Promises from God so. How seriously you take that is up to you. And of course evolution goes against the creation of the Bible...what an odd claim you make.



So there ya' go, you're already stepping all over what you just claimed wasn't true. It goes against the Bible....period



And after all that, still no proof. That's what I thought.

Evolution clearly goes against the fundamentalaistic version of the Bible, true. But fundamentalist ideology isn't the only viable account of the Bible in Christendom. I think it is an abuse of Scripture to pit it against science, as I believe God had in mind other purposes for it than merely providing an accurate geophysical witness. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of a prescientific culture. It would be ridiculous to expect God would have imparted advanced scientific knowledge to the biblical writers, they wouldn't have known what to do with all this.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Science doesn't deal in proofs.

So that's today's cop out phrase? Science deals in proofs often.

The cool thing about facts is that they are still facts regardless if you accept them or not.

The cool thing about proof that it is still proof whether you can provide it or not.

 

[Oafman]

So that's today's cop out phrase? Science deals in proofs often.

Nope. You're thinking of mathematics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But fundamentalist ideology isn't the only viable account of the Bible in Christendom.

You keep repeating that, are you saying that for instance believing Adam was made from the dust of the earth just as is taught in the Bible is a fundamentalist view? I'm honestly thinking you can use the word till your blue in the face but saying there is something wrong with believing what the Bible actually says and hiding behind that term as means to show me I should take the Bible the way you or others choose to is just not a realistic expectation.

Maybe I should ask what are you asking of me? How do you want me to react to being called a fundamentalist? Do you want me to stop? Do you want me to say something I believe is right, is not right, or vice versa?

I really don't know what you are trying to convey with that??

 

[lesliedellow]

So that's today's cop out phrase? Science deals in proofs often.

Science deals in explanations which fit the available facts. If new facts come along, which are incompatible with the current explanation, then a new explanation has to be found, and that new explanation must accord with the new data as well as the old.

A literal six day creation does not accord with the available facts.

The cool thing about proof that it is still proof whether you can provide it or not.

There is no absolute proof outside of pure mathematics, and even that involves the supposition that there is not a fatal flaw in the proof, which has gone unnoticed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nope. You're thinking of mathematics.

Nope, science.

A simple example. A bull and a cow in the field by themselves, the bull does his thing with the cow and a few months later they are no longer buy themselves, a calf is born. That is proof it takes mating whether it be artificial or natural to make the calf....hands down, no doubt about it....proof. I could give you millions of examples. Science does deal in proof.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope, science.

A simple example. A bull and a cow in the field by themselves, the bull does his thing with the cow and a few months later they are no longer buy themselves, a calf is born. That is proof it takes mating whether it be artificial or natural to make the calf....hands down, no doubt about it....proof. I could give you millions of examples. Science does deal in proof.

That doesn't even begin to constitute a proof, or even a theory. If we really knew nothing about the "birds and the bees" it would just be a plausible hypothesis. And that hypothesis would then require further investigation, and extensive testing, before being promoted to the status of a scientific theory.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A literal six day creation does not accord with the available facts.

Says you. What facts? Scientific or the way someone read the science, or the biblical facts? If you believe the bible is fact as many of us do then there is no question about 6 days. If you do not, that's up to you.

There is no absolute proof outside of pure mathematics,

There it is again, why do y'all keep saying something that simply isn't true...do you enjoy discrediting yourselves?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That doesn't even begin to constitute a proof, or even a theory.

Hilarious! Why am I even arguing with some of you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Hilarious! Why am I even arguing with some of you?

You clearly have no idea what a proof, or a scientific theory, is. Try taking a first year undergraduate course in mathematics at a university. THEN you will find out what a proof is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry Les, when one goes so far beyond reason, I see no more reason to try to reason..

 

[KWCrazy]

Where did you get that the earth didn't exist a week before?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Bible says that the earth was created on the first day.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sorry Les, when one goes so far beyond reason, I see no more reason to try to reason..

You know you are out of your depth, in other words.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You know you are out of your depth, in other words.

Na, taunts just aren't going to be enough this time around, lol. are you even listening to yourself?

If we really knew nothing about the "birds and the bees" it would just be a plausible hypothesis.

Who knows nothing about the birds and the bees? And in the example you wouldn't even have to know that. Most of us don't need "further investigation" or "extensive testing" to put the obvious together....most of us.

Been fun, and I mean that.