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.
Well if you are a believer someday you will know. As the Bible says we now see through a glass darkly, but in eternity we will see all things clearly. Someday in heaven we all may talk about this topic and laugh on how we got it wrong. It won't matter then and no one will feel bad or be offended about it. We' LL just understand.A theory doesn't started as having been tested. Its starts as a hypothesis. So like I said - That God has an intelligent design in time and space starting with the emergence of a singularity. Thats my hypothesis on which im going to test my theory when there is capacity to test it - right now I cant so it will remain an untested theory and Im Ok with that - for now. I say for now because I really wanna know the answer to our universe - the annoying thing is I may never know.
I could buy the old earth creation idea for sure. But no matter how old the earth is I will not buy evolution as the theory where we all evolved from one organism. It goes directly against Scripture.Creationism, as it exists today, is largely a product of mid-20th century Fundamentalism. Most Fundamentalists in the early 20th century, while not evolutionists, didn't subscribe to what we know as Young Earth Creationism, such Fundamentalists such as William Jennings Bryan, the prosecuting attorney at the famous Scope's "Monkey" Trial and avid "anti-Darwinist" was one such Old Earth Creationist.
For the most part most Christians following Darwin's findings and his theory of natural selection really weren't bothered. Darwin, by the way, didn't come up with the theory of evolution, Darwin's contribution was the theory of natural selection; evolution was already fairly established and accepted in Darwin's time, but the mechanism for how evolution worked was still largely missing from the puzzle. That's where Darwin comes in with his theory of natural selection, natural selection was the key to understanding evolution. Opposition to evolution largely came later, while there was opposition to Darwin in his lifetime, the massive anti-evolutionist movement didn't really reach any steam until the birth of modern Creationism in the mid-20th century (specifically the 1960's); where evolution became one of a number of social ills targeted by the emerging Religious Right.
The conflict between religion and science, which seems so prevalent and dominant in our current narrative of Western culture is almost entirely an artificial construct of the modern age, perpetuated by a rather (comparatively) fringe minority of Christians who are very vocal and those who have come to think that all Christians (and religious people in general) have a problem with science. It's a false narrative that serves no purpose except to, ultimately, make religion (and Christianity in general) seem like the dying beliefs of a backward people. The problem is that some of the most important contributing minds to the relevant fields to evolution have been practicing Christians from a diverse array of denominational backgrounds and traditions: Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox alike.
-CryptoLutheran
I would also look at these.Thanks
Ok cool.No, but Theistic Evolutionists who are Scientists don't tend to claim that it is a "Scientific Theory", they see it as a religiously based position about certain aspects of relevant Scientific Theories.
You did not just ask a question.Could you please tell me how you get from the emergence of a singularity to a God? why a God and not a magic Unicorn? because neither one of them explain anything at all, you still don't know how it happened all they do is stop you looking for the real answer by making you believe you already have the answer.
I ask a question and you answer with a question? what is wrong with you?
You don't need to answer because everyone knows what is wrong with you,
as do you.
You are implying God is not the real answer to the existence of the universe.you still don't know how it happened all they do is stop you looking for the real answer by making you believe you already have the answer.
I could buy the old earth creation idea for sure. But no matter how old the earth is I will not buy evolution as the theory where we all evolved from one organism. It goes directly against Scripture.
I agree.I could buy old earth because of Genesis 1:1-2. The Bible does not tell how long the earth was there before God started the creation process of life on the earth. I am willing to concede that the earth could be old. The Bible just doesn't say.
I would also look at these.
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Genesis contradictions? - CMI Mobile
Genesis does not really contradict itself. The explanation is easy if you really are interested in one. Those that wish to disparage the word of God or need it to be inconsistent in order to support their view will make this claim. But real study and looking at the meanings of the words lead to an understanding that Gods word is not contradictory.
Does Genesis 2 Contradict Genesis 1?
It's quite simple really.Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent. The only way I can see this being the case is by insisting that the creation narratives of Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken literally, and I've already provided one major reason why they shouldn't. There are two creation stories, right next to each other, and if they are taken literally then they are irreconcilably different--and attempts at trying to reconcile them usually amounts to nothing more than adding to the text or engaging in massive eisegesis.
Talk about engaging in massive eisegesis.The creation narratives aren't there to give us a scientific-like explanation of material (or human) origins; they are there to communicate important points of theology which become increasingly relevant as the biblical narrative continues. And, if we are Christians, we understand that narrative as reaching its climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Origen makes a pretty solid point when he writes,
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16
Those verses are describing the state of the earth before man was created without going back into the details already given in Genesis 1. The focus here in Genesis 2 is on the man, not the earth."In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:4-7
"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:4-7
-CryptoLutheran
Please read the links I provided they explain it very well. The wording used there clearly explains plants and herbs had not been planted yet "for there was no one to plow the ground." That part came after man was made. Also the verbiage is what the Lord "had made" which refers to all the things God made before man was around. The previous day's.
Genesis 2 prescribes exactly how God made man different from the animals. He did not take an animal and evolve it into a man and then breath into him. He formed him from the dust if the ground and IMMEDIATELY breathes life into him and made him a living soul. He did not make man from an animal.
Evolution is denied in Genesis. As is the millions of years theory which is also denied in Exodus.
The name you call it is irrelevant we are all describing the same natural phenomenon. So call it God energy, unicorn energy or Ennie McEnergyface.Why doesn't God-energy explain anything?
God-energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.
So the bible predicted it, observation confirms it exists. This is where science now begins to explain what it is, how it works, why it exists, does our knowledge of it have any useful technological application, etc."I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." -- (Isa 44:24, 45:12).
Above we have an ancient record of a being called God who claimed to have expanded the heavens. That ancient record can serve as a prediction which has now been verified by our observation of an expanding universe. The accuracy of a prediction is a measurement of the accuracy of a claim -- God-energy did it.
Like I said before physicists have no yet explained what it is, but have observed that it exists.You cannot claim dark-energy did it without first identifying what dark-energy is, just as you cannot claim the magic Unicorn did it without first identifying what the magic Unicorn is.
Did what exactly? I am I no way denying God doing anything. God made the universe to be governed by natural laws and this is just one of those. Investigating it to better understand the nature of our universe is not excluding God from the picture in any way.You say dark-energy did it, I say God-energy did it.
What makes your claim more valid than mine?
If it is God-energy it is not natural.The name you call it is irrelevant we are all describing the same natural phenomenon. So call it God energy, unicorn energy or Ennie McEnergyface.
We already know what it is -- God-energy did it.So the bible predicted it, observation confirms it exists. This is where science now begins to explain what it is, how it works, why it exists, does our knowledge of it have any useful technological application, etc.
Like I said before, the accuracy of a prediction is a measurement of the accuracy of a claim.Like I said before physicists have no yet explained what it is, but have observed that it exists.
Stretched out, or expanded, the heavens.Did what exactly?
How do you know it is natural? You are yet to prove it is natural. God said He did it with His own hands, not by natural means. God sometimes set aside natural laws and intervenes supernaturally...the virgin birth for example.I am I no way denying God doing anything. God made the universe to be governed by natural laws and this is just one of those. Investigating it to better understand the nature of our universe is not excluding God from the picture in any way.
Why doesn't God-energy explain anything?
God-energy actually does explain something and gives us some possibilities to investigate which are measurable and testable.
What makes your claim more valid than mine?
Shekinah energy.What is "God-energy"?
Shekinah energy.
First Council of Nicea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made;
To sign up as a Christian on some forums, as I seem to remember I may have done once on this one...people are supposed to agree with this.
Now my question is to Christians and mods who are Christians and mods in training, etc. How can you preach evolution here and claim you are following this little creed?
I agree.
The earth is young, but the planet is old.
Genesis 1 is describing the re-creation of the planet's atmosphere (heavens) and the planet's surface (earth) following a series of global catastrophes that wiped out all prehistoric lifeforms and which left the earth formless and void. God then spent six days re-inhabiting the earth with the new lifeforms we see today.
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?