Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Gracchus]

Evolution cannot be observed (its not science),...

It has been observed. I would post citations, but you wouldn't read them.

... nor is it taught in the Bible.

Lots of things that we know to be true aren't.

So it makes you wonder why people choose to believe in it,...

I am sure it is one of many things that make you wonder. The people whodo accept evolution, usually do know why.

i've never worked it out.

It is good that you know your limitations.

 

[Research1]

It has been observed. I would post citations, but you wouldn't read them.

Then you might want to inform richard dawkins and all the other world's leading evolutionary biologists who have admitted macroevolution is not observable.

 

[Tiberius]

That's it -- thank you!

You're welcome.

Along with macroevolution.

I'm afraid not. You're wrong this time.

Um ... I believe the rib was a one-time thing here.

The many people who believe that men today are missing a rib despite the evidence would disagree with you.

Thus, Adam was created with an extra rib.

In other words, he had one rib more than his genes said he should have.

In other words, the genetic information of such detailed complexity that God put into Adam meant absolutely nothing? Why not just believe that Adam went through the rest of his life missing a rib on one side? Geez, why do you make everything so complicated? Is it so you can use the multitude of unneccessary details to muddy the waters to avoid having to face the logical consequences of what you decide?

 

[Tiberius]

Then you might want to inform richard dawkins and all the other world's leading evolutionary biologists who have admitted macroevolution is not observable.

And you might want to actually READ Richard Dawkins where he says that the evolution from one species to another and the evolution from one genus to the next is simply a matter of degrees. The actual process is absolutely identical.

 

[Research1]

And you might want to actually READ Richard Dawkins where he says that the evolution from one species to another and the evolution from one genus to the next is simply a matter of degrees. The actual process is absolutely identical.

Dawkins has admitted macroevolution is not observable, as did Gould and here is a quote from Jerry Coyne:

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it.''

So macroevolution is not observable, therefore not scientific.

Remember science is what we can observe and test.

 

[axles of fate]

Its not what's not in the Bible, It's what is in the Bible!

The opposite can be said. Have you ever seen Jesus? No you have not. Yet you believe in him. Well how can you if you cant observe him, touch him, ect... in this present world? You must believe what the Bible says about him and who the Bible says He is and believe by Faith.

With that said, evolution is not in the Bible and if Creation was not in the Bible, you would have a good argument but, Direct Creation is in the Bible. God spoke and it was. God saw what he spoke and it was so and good.

Do you really beleive everything in the bible is exact and does not speak in riddles, that we have to figure out. lol. You make me laugh. The bible is the word of god. Lets make my beleifs clear shall we. The bible is NOT what makes me beleive in Jesus God and the Holy Spirit. No its not the bible was written by men. Are you saying that the entire bible is written by gods hand. Do you think no power hungry monarch never altered the bible to gain more power. Do you know what King James did hmm? The king of england who called upon a new bible, who wanted the bible altered to what he pleased. Before that do you know how corrupt the catholic church was? Do you know how pathetic the people the time were. They beleived everything the church said because they could not read. The bible being altered by the church would not be noticed by anyone. Except top officials in the church and those who could read and those were power hungry people.

Do you believe that the world was created in 1000 years. lol. If you do then I will colapse in laughter. Science does not disprove the lord. Do you think what god did really 7 days. Days did not even exist before the creation of the world. Doesnt the bible say that 10000 years is of a day to god. If creation was instentanious and we were just here by the snap of gods fingers and then we popped up no no no. God set the wheels in motion turned the axles of fate (pun intended) and started time and all is history.

Now you better not call my a non christian. As Thomas Jefferson said "
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

Question your religion do your research. Through questioning, through questing for knowledge shall bring you closer to being enlightened and understand others beleifs and more about your own as well.

Have a nice day.

 

[Doveaman]

Jesus said he was a vine, has branches, and bears fruit. Do you take him at his word or do you interpret this as metaphor?

I take him at his word. He is indeed a vine with branches that bear fruit. There are many types of vines of course. Jesus is one of those many types, the type you are obviously not familiar with. There is a spiritual vine as well as physical vines. You are only familiar with the physical vines. Jesus is the spiritual vine, and you are in no position to say otherwise.

 

[axles of fate]

I take him at his word. He is indeed a vine with branches that bear fruit. There are many types of vines of course. Jesus is one of those many types, the type you are obviously not familiar with. There is a spiritual vine as well as physical vines. You are only familiar with the physical vines. Jesus is the spiritual vine, and you are in no position to say otherwise.

I never said anything about spiritual metaphores but that in its self is a metophore and I understand metophore. Yes their are many types of vines and if I believe in the holy spirit jesus christ and god how can you say im blind from spiritual "metaphores". Physical and spiritual combine to make reality this is how humans are, a combination of physicallity and spirituallity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I take him at his word. He is indeed a vine with branches that bear fruit. There are many types of vines of course. Jesus is one of those many types, the type you are obviously not familiar with. There is a spiritual vine as well as physical vines. You are only familiar with the physical vines. Jesus is the spiritual vine, and you are in no position to say otherwise.

Sad how some balk at Genesis being literal and Jesus' parables being parables.

It doesn't surprise me though; not when we're everything but what's in our profiles, eh?

 

[Doveaman]

I said to my print broker that I needed new business cards. And it was so.

I have them sitting on my desk, right this minute. I guess I created them with my voice.

I said to myself I wanted a sandwich. My body responded to my command and the sandwich was created.

 

[axles of fate]

Sad how some balk at Genesis being literal and Jesus' parables being parables.

It doesn't surprise me though; not when we're everything but what's in our profiles, eh?

LOL

 

[Hespera]

Dawkins has admitted macroevolution is not observable, as did Gould and here is a quote from Jerry Coyne:

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it.''

So macroevolution is not observable, therefore not scientific.

Remember science is what we can observe and test.

We notice the editorial use of the word 'admit", with all the use of it implies.


Would you say that "macro-erosion" of mountains is not observable, therefore the idea that a little eroding away every year will eventually wash the mountain away is just NOT SCIENTIFIC? And that geologists just outta admit it, crooks that they are?

 

[Doveaman]

It's like when you say your car "died." A car can't die.

Why not?

And does your answer apply to the spiritual death of a man?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you say that "macro-erosion" of mountains is not observable, therefore the idea that a little eroding away every year will eventually wash the mountain away is just NOT SCIENTIFIC?

From my perspective that is a bad analogy.

I would say the mountain can erode just so far, then hits a barrier whereby it can no longer erode.

And not only that, but that barrier will occur before the mountain changes into anything less than a mountain -- like a hill.

Sound ludicrous?

It should -- like I said, it's a bad analogy.

 

[Doveaman]

Spiritual death describes something very real, but uses a metaphor to describe it.

So spiritual death is not really spiritual death in your opinion, but a mere metaphor? So what is this metaphor describing that is real?

According to the only medical expert among the bible writers Luke the doctor, she really was dead. Luke 8:52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, "Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping." 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. Was Luke wrong or was Jesus not being literal again?

They were both right.

Physical death is real, but to God it is only a temporary form of sleep from which he will awaken us someday, just like he did the girl.

The dying is real, it is just not real death the same as Jesus isn't literally real bread. Why do you think Jesus can be described using physical bread as a metaphor, but what he saves us from can't be described using physical death as a metaphor?

Jesus never described himself using physical bread. He described himself as literal bread. He never said he was like bread. He said he is bread; real, literal, spiritual bread.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." - John 6:32-33.

Jesus is not metaphorical bread, he is true bread.

 

[Doveaman]

Given all of this, why do you claim YOU are infallible?

Who has made such a claim?

What sets you apart from all these other groups?

If we all have a saving relationship with Christ then we are all a part of the same group, despite how ignorant we are otherwise.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." - Rom 3:4.

 

[Doveaman]

You don't get it I suppose.
Both meanings can be valid. We can say Joe died for example and it is probably a physical death we're talking about. But if we say "Joe will die if..." it can mean both physical and/or spiritual death. There are instances where one cannot be certain about it.

Where in Scripture are such instances found?

 

[Doveaman]

I never said anything about spiritual metaphores but that in its self is a metophore and I understand metophore. Yes their are many types of vines and if I believe in the holy spirit jesus christ and god how can you say im blind from spiritual "metaphores". Physical and spiritual combine to make reality this is how humans are, a combination of physicallity and spirituallity.

I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

 

[Tiberius]

From my perspective that is a bad analogy.

I would say the mountain can erode just so far, then hits a barrier whereby it can no longer erode.

And not only that, but that barrier will occur before the mountain changes into anything less than a mountain -- like a hill.

Sound ludicrous?

It should -- like I said, it's a bad analogy.

Very well. If there is some barrier that stops evolution from going too far, please describe this barrier and how it works.

 

[Tiberius]

Dawkins has admitted macroevolution is not observable, as did Gould and here is a quote from Jerry Coyne:

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it.''

So macroevolution is not observable, therefore not scientific.

Remember science is what we can observe and test.

There are many ways to observe, both direct and indirect.

While to observe evolution of an population from one genus to another does take too long for any single person to observe, such evolution has happened before and left behind a wealth of genetic evidence. "Macroevolution" is indirectly observable.