Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Nathan Poe]

If 'my old book' says it -- that settles it.

Who knew you held everything to such a low standard? Oh, wait -- everyone knew that.

 

[Tiberius]

If 'my old book' says it -- that settles it.

The trouble is that you haven't decided that your old book is valid because you have examined it and tested it. You decided it is true because of gut feelings and wishful thinking, and because you haven't bothered to examine reality.

Now, 1611AV (the opening post, not Vet, and it sure gets confusing when you two have such similar names), I'm calling you out.

You asked me to participate in this thread because I posted Biblical passages that supported the idea of evolution. Now, let me ask you the question I asked before.

Are you actually interested in learning what evolution is, or are you just here to bash it?

if you are just here to bash it, let me know now. I'm not going to waste my time. I already have AV who sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anything his viewpoint doesn't have an answer for.

 

[Research1]

The trouble is that you haven't decided that your old book is valid because you have examined it and tested it. You decided it is true because of gut feelings and wishful thinking, and because you haven't bothered to examine reality.

Now, 1611AV (the opening post, not Vet, and it sure gets confusing when you two have such similar names), I'm calling you out.

You asked me to participate in this thread because I posted Biblical passages that supported the idea of evolution. Now, let me ask you the question I asked before.

Are you actually interested in learning what evolution is, or are you just here to bash it?

if you are just here to bash it, let me know now. I'm not going to waste my time. I already have AV who sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anything his viewpoint doesn't have an answer for.

You evolutionists don't explore any alternitives to your own dogmatic theory. So this is nothing more than hypocrisy.

Are you interested in learning what creationism is, or are you just here to bash it?

 

[1611AV]

The trouble is that you haven't decided that your old book is valid because you have examined it and tested it. You decided it is true because of gut feelings and wishful thinking, and because you haven't bothered to examine reality.

Now, 1611AV (the opening post, not Vet, and it sure gets confusing when you two have such similar names), I'm calling you out.

You asked me to participate in this thread because I posted Biblical passages that supported the idea of evolution. Now, let me ask you the question I asked before.

Are you actually interested in learning what evolution is, or are you just here to bash it?

if you are just here to bash it, let me know now. I'm not going to waste my time. I already have AV who sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anything his viewpoint doesn't have an answer for.

I have not bashed Evolution, I have asked a few questions to Christians without answers from Christians.

This thread is for Bible believing Christians that also believe in Evolution. Now if that is you, Show me Biblically how you came to the conclusion that Evolution is the way God did it.

Everyone of course is allowed to participate and share there knowledge. but if you go back and read the thread, you will see that it is all about bashing the existence of God rather than showing why a Christian would believe in evolution, specifically of man but not limited to man.

The call is answered. The stage is yours. Go...

 

[AV1611VET]

I have not bashed Evolution, I have asked a few questions to Christians without answers from Christians.

This thread is for Bible believing Christians that also believe in Evolution. Now if that is you, Show me Biblically how you came to the conclusion that Evolution is the way God did it.

Everyone of course is allowed to participate and share there knowledge. but if you go back and read the thread, you will see that it is all about bashing the existence of God rather than showing why a Christian would believe in evolution, specifically of man but not limited to man.

The call is answered. The stage is yours. Go...

Good thread, AV.

I think TEs believe in evolution in spite of the Bible, not in respect to the Bible.

 

[Phred]

Creationists don't claim creationism is scientific. We can't observe the creation of the universe or life, so no view (evolution, creationism, ancient astronaut theory etc) is scientific on this matter.

Science is strictly what we can observe, test and repeat - as any science dictionary will tell you.

Are you saying the dictionaries are wrong?

Nope. We can observe evolution. We can test evolution and it has been repeated. You're asking for the observation of ONE specific instance of evolution yet you don't know enough about what evolution is to understand that this ONE instance doesn't exist. There is no "eureka" moment when man suddenly appeared on earth. It was a gradual process across vast amounts of time. No parents ever had a child they didn't recognize. But you categorize everything under your creationist view. Which is categorically wrong.

All your own personal interpretation, nothing more. Creationists look at the same info but come to different conclusions.

You look at the information but you don't understand it. Likely because you don't want to understand it.

And since you have admitted evolution is not observable, then i don't see why you oppose creationism so much. Both are on the same level, as neither have ever been observed.

I admitted no such thing. I said that the ONE instance that you wish to observe can't be seen. Mainly because it didn't happen that way. But also because human beings don't live long enough to view it. Creation can't be seen because it never happened. Two radically different reasons with the same outcome.

Yet this was contradicted in the evolutionary community only recently by a finding in Israel, and others in China.

The only reason most still cling to the 'out of africa' theory is because of political correctness.

No, you misunderstand the data once again.

I never claimed creationism is scientfic. However you claimed evolution is science, but then admit its not observable. Stop calling it a science then...its clearly a religion/faith/assumption.

I claimed your ignorant attempt to say that man's evolution was a sudden occurrence that we should have observed was foolish and of course couldn't be seen because it didn't happen that way.

People are entitled to be skeptical. Evolutionists appear to question nothing, shows that evolution is not science doesn't it? Because real science is open to change and challenging, yet evolutionists are dogmatic that their theory is fact and never research or look into anything else.

You need to learn enough to challenge it rationally. Right now you're like a child challenging an adult with foolish and ignorant ideas that don't apply to the subject. Until you learn enough about evolution to even have a rational conversation you don't get to have an opinion. Right now the things you claim are real would actually invalidate the theory. So yes I'm dogmatic in the face of such willful ignorance. Especially when it's not even based in reality but upon a book of stories told by ancient people who didn't even know the earth was round.

Evolutionists explore no alternitives, they just blindly go along with their theory without ever questioning it or researching anything else.

Even the use of the term, "evolutionists" shows your ignorance. Only a religionist uses such terms because to them it degrades the person they're using it on. And we don't explore alternatives like, "Godidit". Why would we? There's no evidence to suggest that's how it happened.

People observe and experience God everyday.

Really? What you experience is inside you. It can be replicated with a machine that creates magnetic fields. Your "god" has no effect upon the world other than inside the minds of believers. No effect. No evidence. I know what you believe. But what you call YHWH Muslims call Allah and Hindus call Vishnu. It's had a million different names over the centuries and has had zero effect upon the world independent of man. Men created your god, not the other way around.

The problem here is that evolutionists are materialists and don't understand there is a spirtual dimension to life.

The spiritual dimension to our lives comes from within, not from without. You need to make some sort of peace between your belief and what science shows us about the world around us. Either by somehow coming to grips with the world and just accepting your god created it or letting go of the antiquated belief that you need a god to exist. God needs you to exist. But either way you need to realize that you can't change reality by wishing. No matter how hard you pray. Pray to your god, pray to Joe Pesci. The result is the same. Only when you pray to Joe you don't get stupid over evolution.

 

[sandwiches]

Basics...

Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

Only 6 has ever been observed though, all the others are not proven.

I'm sorry but when we talk about evolution without a qualifier, we're referring to the the theory that explains the diversity of life or the observed change allele frequency in biological organisms. So, no, evolution has nothing to do with the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

 

[sandwiches]

OK then give me the answer you believe. In the beginning?...

So, you'll believe whatever answer I believe in? Nah... you're just changing the goalposts. You said that this is "the only answer" earlier. So, again, are you saying that all the hundreds of sects and religions don't have answers?

 

[sandwiches]

Materialists have been stating their beliefs for a while now. The only problem is you want special treatment and special regard when it comes to Darwinian evolution.

This is an interesting claim and that's saying something considering the usual nature of your posts. How do materialists "want special treatment and special regard?"

 

[sandwiches]

The trouble is that you haven't decided that your old book is valid because you have examined it and tested it. You decided it is true because of gut feelings and wishful thinking, and because you haven't bothered to examine reality.

To be fair, I believe that AV may have had an experience that he felt was meaningful enough for him to trust the Bible. I don't think I've ever heard this story and I'm not sure that his experience would convince me but I do feel that he feels he has a valid reason for believing.

Now, I do agree with you that I think that regardless of what happened to me, I would evaluate my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. In fact, I've had more than a couple of strange or awesome experiences which have no concrete explanation and I've yet to become superstitious but maybe it's harder for some to analyze or criticize their own beliefs, specially when you feel that where you spend eternity is dictated by your those same beliefs.

 

[sandwiches]

Good thread, AV.

I think TEs believe in evolution in spite of the Bible, not in respect to the Bible.

I think that's one of the main problems I have with the Bible, besides errors and contradictions: The fact that there's no way to tell which parts are allegorical and which parts are describing literal reality when we don't have empirical evidence to support or falsify some of the claims. Now, I understand that you believe that a) there's no evidence to be found and b) if there is evidence, we just haven't found it. Well then, at least for the moment, there's still no way to distinguish which parts are meant to be taken literally (in the dictionary definition of the word) and which parts are meant as metaphors.

Until then, I think TEs interpretations of the Bible are as valid as yours unless you can show a demonstrable verifiable reason why you think your interpretation is more correct.

 

[Naraoia]

I see my time-resistant evidence lies forgotten in the depths of the thread

Definition of troll:

''A person who posts outrageous, extraneous, controversial or off-topic messages to bait people to answer''

Which of his posts fit any of these criteria?

Sandwiches is a troll, who is claiming:

1. He knows how life started.
2. He knows howthe moon was created
3. He knows how the earth was created.

Support each of those assertions with quotes and links, please.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches...

I don't think you've seen a militant atheist.

... are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

What indicates that Sandwiches thinks he has "all the answers to everything"?

He's just posting stupid posts to wind people up.

He may have wound you up - that doesn't mean that was his intent, only that you have thin skin.

Sandwiches is claiming he knows (for certain) about everything and that scientists know all the answers about the origin of life (that evolution is a fact) and the origin of the moon. Re-read his post where he clearly stated this.

Provide a link to that post, please.

Definition of religion from astandard dictionary -

''a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe''

For the readers' interest, the "standard dictionary" is dictionary.com (next time you make a claim about a specific source, try to cite it, OK?)

This is only part of the first definition of religion. The definition continues thusly:

"...especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
​

One has to wonder why that part was left out.

The theory of evolution therefore is religious.

The theory of evolution isn't about the cause of the universe, and no scientific theory is capable of investigating the purpose of the universe. So even without the omitted part of the definition, the ToE fails to meet two out of three of its criteria.

Hence science is limited on these issues. We don't know the age of the earth or universe, we just have reasonable estimations. For example no one knows what day and what second the universe was made, scientists can only guess by a million or billion year estimate.

Oh wow. Do you know of any measurement technique that can achieve second-level precision over those time scales? Let's put this in perspective: a day is 86 400 seconds, a year is about 31.5 million seconds. Fourteen billion years (the approximate age of the known universe) amount to roughly 4.5 x 10^17 seconds.

Measuring the age of the universe to 1:10^17 precision might just be the most precise measurement of anything anyone has ever made.

However, if someone was there - we would know the exact date, hence we have some very precise times for battles and historical events since recorded history.

Some. And most of them not to the nearest second, I bet. Yet these are mere centuries or millennia, not billions of years.

Basics...

Basics of equivocation, you mean. Without qualifiers, "evolution" almost invariably means biological evolution (and the theory of evolution, which you're so busy calling a religion a few quotes further up, certainly does). We may talk about the evolution of a particular system in a specific context, but I don't think I've ever seen a non-creationist just use "evolution" on its own to refer to something other than the biological phenomenon. So please next time you're talking about stellar evolution, make it clear that you are doing so.

(@everyone else: Oh, so it's Hovind? I knew it was familiar...)

It's not directly observable.

When the clouds cover the Sun do you claim it is religious to believe it is still there because we cannot directly observe it? I imagine, like everyone else, you see that it is still light outside and reasonably conclude that the Sun still exists even when you can't see it.

Could it be that he has some major problems with object permanence?

 

[1611AV]

So, you'll believe whatever answer I believe in? Nah... you're just changing the goalposts. You said that this is "the only answer" earlier. So, again, are you saying that all the hundreds of sects and religions don't have answers?

Can you say DEFLECTION!!! I understand completely.

 

[sandwiches]

Can you say DEFLECTION!!! I understand completely.

I asked you first and you evaded my question by asking me something irrelevant. YOU are the one who made the claim, not me.

So again, will you concede the point that there are more than one answer or will you show me evidence to the contrary?

 

[Freodin]

OK then give me the answer you believe. In the beginning?...

In the beginning... it began.

Seriously: as soon as you start to delve deeper into concepts like "beginning", or "nothing", you (should) start to see the problems with simple answers.

Note: (should). Creationists are famous for clinging to simple answers and ignoring any potential problems resulting from that. But I am still hopeful to find one that might be open enough to talk and think about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that's one of the main problems I have with the Bible, besides errors and contradictions: The fact that there's no way to tell which parts are allegorical and which parts are describing literal reality when we don't have empirical evidence to support or falsify some of the claims. Now, I understand that you believe that a) there's no evidence to be found and b) if there is evidence, we just haven't found it. Well then, at least for the moment, there's still no way to distinguish which parts are meant to be taken literally (in the dictionary definition of the word) and which parts are meant as metaphors.

Until then, I think TEs interpretations of the Bible are as valid as yours unless you can show a demonstrable verifiable reason why you think your interpretation is more correct.

I don't agree with this.

It wouldn't matter if one took Genesis 1 literally or allegorically.

If they have never heard of evolution, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to cull it from the pages of Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't agree with this.

It wouldn't matter if one took Genesis 1 literally or allegorically.

If they have never heard of evolution, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to cull it from the pages of Genesis.

We don't cull it from the pages of Genesis anyway.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't agree with this.

It wouldn't matter if one took Genesis 1 literally or allegorically.

If they have never heard of evolution, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to cull it from the pages of Genesis.

I agree that evolution cannot be extrapolated from the Bible. However, I don't think that's what TEs argue, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that they're merely arguing that the Bible may not speak of it, in the same way it doesn't speak of so many things that we know today, but that they feel it does not speak against it and more importantly that his creation (i.e. The universe) is evidence of how their god actually did what he did.

Again, not my interpretation, of course, just what I understand from their claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't cull it from the pages of Genesis anyway.

I know you don't -- and I believe that's AV's point* -- you're brainwashed by science.

* Feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree that evolution cannot be extrapolated from the Bible. However, I don't think that's what TEs argue, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that they're merely arguing that the Bible may not speak of it, in the same way it doesn't speak of so many things that we know today, but that they feel it does not speak against it and more importantly that his creation (i.e. The universe) is evidence of how their god actually did what he did.

Again, not my interpretation, of course, just what I understand from their claims.

A TE, in my opinion, is an 'educated' creationist.

And I mean that as no offense to them, but sometimes the truth hurts.