Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.Ya -- His voice.
no offense to anyone but evolution is crap
GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.
Anyone care to answer
None taken, but that verse does not discount evolution. No matter how you read it. Unless you start making substitutions and additions.
No, evolution is not "crap". It's an excellent theory. And by theory I do not mean "a neat idea". I mean a thoroughly tested description of observances of the reality around us. Like the theory of gravity or (exceeding) orbital theory from chemistry.
I am no biologist, and I have not had many courses and done much study of evolution. But I have studied cells and the inner functions of them in a technological capacity. Work which does not make sense without evolution. Evolution is more than just man evolving from an ancestor. Much more. And we see evidence of it even in the composition of the cells. There is no doubt evolution has taken place. That today's complex life comes from something much less complex before us. And what's more, evolution is a tool we actively use in biotechnological work. Chances are you're using several products based on lifeforms or proteins which are the result of forced evolution.
no offense to anyone but evolution is crap
GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
So let me get this right, Do you believe God created Adam directly, formed from dust to Human within one day? Or do you believe Adam evolved from a simpler life form? Also, if you believe Adam was a evolved creature, did Adams ancestors die before Adam became a living soul?
I couldn't agree more.
Even if evolution is true (which it isn't) - it has no purpose or meaning.
Ohright. You're one of those people who thinks physical death did not exist before the fall?
Well, if physical death was what sin brought with it into this world why:
a: does the bible speak of the tree of eternal life as one of the reasons why A&E were kicked out of the garden
b: do we still die even though Jesus supposedly defeated death and cleansed our sins upon His death and resurrection? By that logic we should all live eternally here on earth. We don't. So by that approach to the bible the whole story is just one huge hoax.
I think the story is mostly a parable. Adam and Eve were possibly real people, but the sole origin of all mankind? No. Of Israel? Quite possibly. But we can genetically trace homo sapiens for thousands upon thousands of years before this supposed creation took place. I do not know how He did it. Just that He did not do it the way you say.
Did God create us? Yes I think so. The way you say He did? I find no evidence to support it. And the scriptural evidence is tenuous at the very best. Especially as your interpretation conflicts with the physical evidence which reveals civilizations older than you say the universe is.
Thats what I thought you would say. Lets search the scriptures and see if this holds up. Are you willing?
Metaphysical laws. Physical experimentation. This isn't the first time in time Darwinian evolution has been hypothesized, although under a different name being promulgated by a different people in a different epoch yet thoroughly questioned, denounced and refuted. The only thing is today, we are supposed to accept it because it has "theory" attached to it, and when there is theory, unlike in the past, today you are supposed to accept it lest you be labeled as "stupid". It is recognized for what it is, no matter where or when it emerges.I do not think you have thought this through, research. If God used evolution to create us and keeps on using it, which all evidence points to, why is this problematic?
Yet the evidence shows intelligent design.The thing is, because of creationists many people think christianity must be false because creationism is about as obviously wrong as obvious comes. Tragic.
Metaphysical laws. Physical experimentation. This isn't the first time in time Darwinian evolution has been hypothesized, although under a different name being promulgated by a different people in a different epoch yet thoroughly questioned, denounced and refuted. The only thing is today, we are supposed to accept it because it has "theory" attached to it, and when there is theory, unlike in the past, today you are supposed to accept it lest you be labeled as "stupid". It is recognized for what it is, no matter where or when it emerges.
Yet the evidence shows intelligent design.
English sounds good to me -- but for the record, it doesn't matter, does it?Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.
Anyone care to answer
We evolved from a common ancestor.
Sure. But I have gone through the before 1611. I've scrutinized them and creation for years. I know your interpretation. I used to think the same way. But I have concluded that my views then, and your views now, are flawed. They are human opinions and they are falsified by studying God's creation. What's more, they are only congruent with the bible if the bible is read a certain way. A way many - possibly even most - Christians do NOT read it.
Sure we can go through it if you really want to. But you won't introduce me to something I haven't read and thought about - possibly extensively - before. Your main problem, and this is a mistake I've made too - is that while you do seek God and seek to know and understand Him you don't look at His creation and you do not - apparently - try to analyze what you read from more than one perspective. This is problematic for many reasons, and I am afraid it presupposes something which must never be assumed: Infallibility.
It's a wonderful parable showing God's love and His compassion. His creativity and His role. But it is not an accurate story in that it's contents reveal a scientific truth. But it's a parable, not an exact eyewitness account detailing everything in as much detail and accuracy as a video camera could.
We DO have such an account though. At least for the major lines creation has taken. Grab a hold of a telescope and look up. You'll be looking back in time, and you'll see how creation has progressed. A story far grander than can ever be encompassed within one book, let alone a few verses.
God is great. Don't try to assume He can be contained within human assumptions.He can't. And whenever mankind has tried to do so before He has astounded us by revealing Himself to be much greater. Why do you then think He is so small as to fit within your tiny definition and suppositions?
Is it possible you can convince me? Sure. Anything is possible. If you DO convince me that your interpretation is correct though you'll at the same time convince me Christianity is a hoax. It must be in that case. After all, if you're right God is actively lying to us through His creation. What I do every day would not be possible if your interpretation was correct AND it was true. 1611, you're wrong. If God is real you must be wrong. If you're right the Christian God or at least the Christian religion must be false. It is exactly the same as the old norse religion which taught a great wyrm encircled the earth, keeping the oceans in. They taught it was flat. We KNOW it is not. They also taught Thor rode his chariot and threw his hammer at ettins, causing thunder and lightning. Which we also by simple observation now know to be false. So by extension we also KNOW it as a religion is false. No doubt.
Your claims of a young earth are equally falsified. Just as we KNOW Thor does not ride his chariot above the clouds and just as we KNOW the earth isn't flat we KNOW the earth isn't 6-10 000 years old.
Which is why the tests are citedIt's not that simple Greg. It's a very thoroughly tested theory.
I feel so much better now. Thanks.Are you stupid for not accepting it? No. I don't think so. Ignorant, perhaps. But ignorant is not stupid.
We are aware of the underlying principles.It is a condition which can be remedied. If you don't know 5+5=10 that does not mean you're stupid. It means you don't know it. You're ignorant of the underlying mechanics/principles. Which is not wrong.
Then pick another beast.The main problem creationists have is that they seldom know what they are criticizing. Claims like "Humans did NOT evolve from chimps!"
Actually degradation over time is relevant.Other claims like "The second law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible!" is another common claim, which is even worse.
Except that the evidence points to intelligent design.No, I am not saying creationists are stupid. Just wrong. Demonstrably so.
The bacterial flagellum. Irreducibly complex.No. It does not. Show me ONE example of what creationists consider properly intelligent design.
Design is identifiable via physical means.I also wonder at why God would utilize designs we recognize as intelligent by human standards.
Metaphysics is not understandable via physical science. Doesn't mean that Darwinism is the explanation for the metaphysical creation of man.so it seems somewhat problematic to say we can identify and understand his methods of creation offhand.
Let's say manAnd it also seems somewhat problematic to claim God did "A" when everything He ever made points to something completely different, let's say the entire chinese alphabet.
You can know a lie... For instance during a liedetector experiment a patient was asked if he was napoleon... he answered "no" and the liedetector showed that he lied.
You can know alot of things... For instance long time ago you knew that photones were particles, later you knew that it was waves, now you know that it is both waves and particles...
Which is why the tests are cited
I feel so much better now. Thanks.
If so, why do you make so many rookie mistakes at the top echelons of your "society"?We are aware of the underlying principles.
Perhaps it is better that you who do the critiquing should learn what you're criticizing? Is that really too much to ask?Then pick another beast.
Actually degradation over time is relevant.
No it doesn't. Look at whatever point you want. Whatever claim you creationists boast. The best you can come up with is that we don't know every detail about certain things. But one cannot from that conclude that the thing about which our knowledge is lacking was made by an engineer, human, divine or otherwise.Except that the evidence points to intelligent design.
The bacterial flagellum. Irreducibly complex.
Design is identifiable via physical means.
Metaphysics is not understandable via physical science. Doesn't mean that Darwinism is the explanation for the metaphysical creation of man.
Let's say man
Since I was a kid I always wondered; In what language did God speak the universe into being? One Evangelical American told me it was English??? I told him that English is not an ancient language and is a first cousin to German, but he still insisted it was English.
Anyone care to answer
Oh dear, no not English.
There is a NT Apocryphal book (Can't remember which one sorry, my book with them in isn't to hand either, but I think possibly the Apocalypse of Paul) which claims that the heavenly language is Hebrew.
I'm not necessarily advocating this view, just trying to give a vaguely interesting response.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?