Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

Estrid said:

Sounds like a violation of forum rules, calling science a religion.

At best its insidious and dishonest.

Click to expand...

Care to discuss it?

(Or do you like how it sounds to you?)

driewerf said:

God is just like a human engineer and can't do the things right from the first time?

Click to expand...

Ask an engineer when the proper time NOT TO SCALE should be used in a narrative.

(Or maybe you're content not to understand?)

driewerf said:

God is just like a human engineer and can't do the things right from the first time?

Click to expand...

That's where that there omniscience
will get ya.

One of the best quotes I heard regarding the Lord is that "we are in no position to understand how he operates". Even the science would be well beyond our primitive understanding today.


It may unfairly be a catch-all position for a number of mysteries, however, it is true. It is why it is called Faith. We submit ourselves to the Lord and seek out heaven upon death. We shouldn't have such arrogance of ego to believe we can understand his decisions.

peacefulseeker said:

One of the best quotes I heard regarding the Lord is that "we are in no position to understand how he operates". Even the science would be well beyond our primitive understanding today.


It may unfairly be a catch-all position for a number of mysteries, however, it is true. It is why it is called Faith. We submit ourselves to the Lord and seek out heaven upon death. We shouldn't have such arrogance of ego to believe we can understand his decisions.

Click to expand...

The ( vast ) arrogance I see in many
religious sorts is their self ordained
infallibility.
They claim to know with inerrant certainty what his word means.
Faith in themselves.
Tough to get more arrogant than that.

Estrid said:

The ( vast ) arrogance I see in many
religious sorts is their self ordained
infallibility.
They claim to know with inerrant certainty what his word means.
Faith in themselves.
Tough to get more arrogant than that.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've never embraced dogma. However, I do give reverence to those who make it their living to know and understand. Ultimately though, they are God's words, I can read them and try and understand the meaning.

Faith involves just that. Arrogance that mocks.religion has been worse in my experiences

peacefulseeker said:

Yes, I've never embraced dogma. However, I do give reverence to those who make it their living to know and understand. Ultimately though, they are God's words, I can read them and try and understand the meaning.

Faith involves just that. Arrogance that mocks.religion has been worse in my experiences

Click to expand...

Good that you don't do dogma.
Personally, I don't do reverence for anyone,
and I dont trust authorities.

Just one so close to disastrous doctor
mistake almost cost my life.
That's one example of why I need
sources, plural, for info and need to
understand, not just listen. And don't just
trust coz " authority".

Personally, I doubt that there is any
Word of God to read or understand.
It would be nice if there were.
Learned and earnest theists still come
to wildly different conclusions even though
the go with the same belief that it is God's word.

Though it was written by men, inspired, they
said, by god.

I know faith is believing anyway.
Faith has its place, and, it's sadly often
deeply misplaced.

Faith is just not in my nature though.

Mocking religion isnt my thing either.
Christianity is, imo, a noble faith and
has much to recommend it, if one can just
manage to walk the walk.

Well, tried this over in the Physical and Life sciences forum, with a thread of @AV1611VET's, and the thread was instantly closed, so let's try it here, shall we...?

Creation and Evolution Debate (again), etc...


I have tried to show you all how all this arguing can all be put to rest on multiple occasions...

Would any of you care to hear it (again)...?

Because I very much highly doubt it...

(Because none of you cared to hear it the first time, or the second time, or the "one hundred and eleventh time", or "whatever", etc)...

A summary: Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 should be it's own chapter, or maybe even book, etc, since it is a summary or history (quick fly over or fly by really) of an entire Creation from beginning to end, etc, the time of the fall is not even mentioned, etc, 7 quote/unquote "days", etc, that were actually very, very long ages or periods of time, of which day 7 hasn't even happened yet, and of which we have been in day 6 for a very, very long time, etc...

Genesis 2:5 should be the start of a whole new chapter, or maybe even book, etc, since it just jumps in to just only at the start of the Garden of Eden and of the Man and the animals there on day 6, which actually only started a long long time into day 6 already, etc, the Garden of Eden was regional, and was a special creation beginning with the very first Son of God, etc, who was also a special creation, etc, which were different from the evolved race of the sons of men, etc...

After the exile from Eden, the original Son of God gave rise to a race of the Sons of God, etc, that lived, or were in the region of Mesopotamia at or around 5500-6000 years BC, they began running into the race of the sons and daughters of men, and began having hybrid children with them (Nephlim, etc), God the Spirit, who was over them then, did not like this, and so chose only eight of those original ones to save or spare, and then sent a regional flood to kill or wipe out all of the others (except Cain and his family (progeny) and his wife (a daughter of men/man), his (Cains) progeny or children from that wife were other Nephlim that might have survived the flood, etc) (besides the original eight that were still pure Sons of God that God the Spirit decided to spare or save (Noah and his family, etc)) All others of those original Sons of God/descendants of Adam, were killed or wiped out by the regional flood that happened around 5000/5500 BC in the region of Mesopotamia where they were dwelling, also most of the hybrid children of them (Nephlim) who were being created or made by them (those original Sons of God) in that region also, etc...

After that, Noah and his family's lineage began to dwindle or decrease as they had no choice after that but to eventually breed with the evolved race of the sons and daughters of men, who at the time, were more like animals to God the Spirit than actual men or people, and is why most of those original ones (Sons of God) were destroyed by Him, besides the fact that they had become exceedingly wicked besides that, etc...

I'll stop there for now...

Tell me if you want to hear more, ok...

God Bless!

The fossil record is correct, the earth is very, very old, and so is the universe, etc, etc, etc, and none of it actually contradicts the Bible, etc...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:

Well, tried this over in the Physical and Life sciences forum, with a thread of @AV1611VET's, and the thread was instantly closed, so let's try it here, shall we...?

Click to expand...

Just fyi, Neo, I requested thread closure before you posted in it.

I felt the thread had run its course, and I requested it be closed.

AV1611VET said:

Just fyi, Neo, I requested thread closure before you posted in it.

I felt the thread had run its course, and I requested it be closed.

Click to expand...

It's fine, I just didn't want to completely waste what I just did, etc, nothing worse than wasted effort, etc...

So, I just put it on the first thread I saw that was closely about the Creation vs Evolution debate that I saw here, I meant nothing against you personally, and I hope you know that, etc...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:

I meant nothing against you personally, and I hope you know that, etc...

Click to expand...

I do indeed, my friend!

kiwimac said:

The mistake, and it is largely a modern one, is to insist that the Genesis stories are a kind of "how to" guide rather than a "why." The authors were not attempting to explain how the universe came to be; rather than that the universe was a definite act of a loving God. How God chose to do that is not as important as that God was the originator and author.

Click to expand...

We know what He did because it’s clear, and it’s supported in other parts of scripture. There’s no explanation as to how He did it outside of Him speaking.

dlamberth said:

God Created the Earth and Life on it, so being of God, the Earth can not lie. Now, today, ancient creation stores of the past are being updated by God through the window that science gives us into the Earth and the Cosmos.

Click to expand...

Earth isn’t a moral agent.

Hammster said:

We know what He did because it’s clear, and it’s supported in other parts of scripture. There’s no explanation as to how He did it outside of Him speaking.

Click to expand...

How he did what? I didn't see any
Bible verse about how pacific islands
form from volcanoes, erode and
subside, become coral atolls and
finally sink out of sight.
Nothing about how any mountain
forms.

Hammster said:

Earth isn’t a moral agent.

Click to expand...

So you think the history shown in the earth
itself is a lie.

Estrid said:

How he did what? I didn't see any
Bible verse about how pacific islands
form from volcanoes, erode and
subside, become coral atolls and
finally sink out of sight.
Nothing about how any mountain
forms.

Click to expand...

Reread my post.

Estrid said:

So you think the history shown in the earth
itself is a lie.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Hammster said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Good.
Then you've no biblical counterclaim
to any statements about the earth being
many millions of years old, and having gone
through many great changes in climate,
land forms and life forms?

Hammster said:

Reread my post.

Click to expand...

OK, I still see no such reference.
No explanation beyond something
like " He spoke".

AV1611VET said:

So Earth only speaks to those who have the right tools?

Click to expand...

If you use that phrase as a figure of speech, one could answer with yes.
If taken literally: the Earth doesn’t speak at all. But the better the tools the wider the variety of data one can gather, the more accurate and reliable that data is.