Creationism will only destroy science

[rmwilliamsll]

[/I]

Off topic, this happens to me when I use the computers at my local library. Something about them causes me to only be able to respond in HTML, and I can't create spaces without the proper tags. I recomend asking for help in the site support forum. They might have an idea for you.

try the bbscode equivalent to the html
[br]br=break[/br]
p=paragraph[/p]

<br>br</br>
<p>p</p>


depending on what kind of window you are typing in.

this window eats the bracketed p that is missing above.

there is another html that might work, just experiment.

<blockquote>

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Ok with that last message I tried to get it all spaced out for easier reading but that didnt work. Sorry

I think the following will fix this.

1. Click on Control Panel at the top of the screen.

2. In the left menu of the page that appears, click Edit Options.

3. In the long page that comes up, scroll down to Miscellaneous Options and change the Message Editor Interface to either Basic Editor or Standard Editor but not Enhanced Interface. Make sure to click the Save Changes page at the bottom when you're done.

 

[theoddamerican]

Excuse me. This is a side issue. But did you ever hear of paragraphing? It makes a post much easier to read if there are a few blanks lines every so often.

Sorry about the paragraphing. Everytime I submit a new message it does that even when I try to make it easier.I am also going to try to quoete some of your stuff that you typed if it doesn't go as a quote sorry but I'm sure you will see it.

Exactly. So how do you tell which is which? Look at Mercury's question to you about Eccelesiates 1:5-7. Why is 1:5 figurative while 1:6 and 1:7 according to you are literal?

the first verse is figurative. Every person is guilty of saying that the sun rises and sets. Why would God not be allowed to use figurative speech to talk to someone. Also lets say we were having a conversation and I say I have to go to work. It is easy to understand that you would right away know that I have to leave and go to work. But with what I said if you took it as a literal, I would begin working right away.

It is not that the universe expanded; it is expanding. I already drew that to your attention. So, at a minimum, instead of saying God stretched out the heavens, it should say God is stretching out the heavens. I don't think that would tax their limited resources.

I challenge you to explaine the planetary rotations to a toddler. A toddler can't understand it untill later on in life when they have been taught this. Or when they can see a picture of the universe and understand that these things are really far away. Back then they had no idea what a trillion miles actually meant. So I would say they had limited resources.

How does a pack of lies and distortions and misrepresentations get anyone started to find the truth for themselves?

It caused me to get interested in the subject and to explore both sides of the spectrum.

Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s.

I replied to every one of the 26 items listed.

I want to apologise about that because I didn't even see that until I posted the reply.

Actually it was your source that said "sphere".



"Round" can mean either "sphere" or "circle". Which did you intend it to mean?

My version says circle.

As I said I am not a Day-Ageist. I agree that most instances of 'yom' in Gen. 1 refer to solar days, not an indeterminate length of time.

What I do not agree to is that they are historical days. Days that occur within a story are days in the story, not necessarily days in history. The topical arrangement of the days in Gen. 1 and their conflict with the witness of God's creation confirm that Gen.1 is a story about creation, not a chronological report of the order of creation.

Not completely following the witnesses thing but in Exodus 20:8-11 it is talking about another topic but it refers to the days in genesis as being literal 24 hour days In Mark 10:6 jesus refers to man and woman being created in the beginning. With the last verse if you believe that jesus was who he said he was and not believe this then Jesus is a liar. But that is your own personal belief

Science doesn't do proof. Mathematicians do and logicians do, but not science. Science presents evidence and makes conclusions (always tentative) based on the evidence. The more evidence is shown to be consistent with a theory, and only with this particular theory as compared with alternatives, the more confidence scientists have that the theory is correct.

But then the evidence for evolution can't be 100% unless it can literually be observed. Random Guy gave me a link to a site that had "29 proofs of macro evolution" The first one on the list from my understanding observed that we all have simularities. To get to the point. All human beings have a hearts and lungs. So do all animals. Does that mean that we are related? Absolutely not. All the living organisms on this planet need to have simulariteis. Otherwise we would not be able to live.

It would take a library of considerable size to present all the evidence in favour of evolution.

If thats what you want to believe you can. I think that the proofs of evolution can go with what I said about macro evolution. The observances that they have probably ensure that an organism can live.

But the first step is to understand what evolution is and the evidence that shows evolution happens.

Then were are the missing links?

The second is to understand how evolution works and the evidence that demonstrates how it works.

I understand the theory that you can eventually get one animal or plant from another but where are the missing links. Don't show me the micro evolution things because I do believe in that. (variations in a species)

The rest is the history of evolution. This is the most controversial part of evolution as often we have little evidence for parts of the history. Nevertheless, what evidence we do have is consistent with our expectations.

If I wan't evidence that the moon is made of cheese I am pertty sure I can find it. I can say that we never have visited the moon so no one knows and that a giant cow was flying through space and dropped off some milk and then it turned into cheese. Thus, the moon. This is very illogical and no one would believe me, but so is evolution.

So, let us concentrate on just the first step. As long as you have an incorrect concept of what evolution is, you will be floundering in the dark and looking for the wrong kind of evidence.

Once you understand what evolution is, we can go to the next step: how does evolution happen?

Can you give a single-sentence description of what, in your opinion, evolution is.

Evolution is one species changing to become better. Maby that is evolving into a new species in order to do something better. Is this accurate?

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.

 

[theoddamerican]

Do you realize how unfair this is? How long did it take you to cut and paste that list? A minute or two?

Would you like to estimate how much time it took me to look up every single scriptural reference and type an original reply (not one cut and pasted from somewhere else)?

Actually I spent about four hours looking through my material then I compared it to a site and it matched up. I believe that you do have a point whith your statement but I assure you that I did do my research. If you believe my or not that I don't care.

So they had a word for "round" that can mean either "sphere" or "circle". How does that show they meant it to mean "sphere" and not "circle" in the texts cited?

When you describe the Earth some people describe it to be round some describe it as a sphere.

The purpose of science is to figure out how nature works. It shows us what is. But knowing what is does not tell us why it is. That is where faith comes in. That is where the scriptures are a principal resource. Look to science to understand how nature works, but look to God's revelation to understand the meaning and purpose of existence.

I agree with what the purpose of science is. I also believe that we need to God's revelation for understanding. When you involve evolution whith God to explaine how it happened you also unknowingly take the need out for a savior. With evolution though, death was needed for life. But with what the bible teaches the choices of life caused death. (Genesis chapter 3)

The entire Bible ties into one thing and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the Christ as a perfect sacrifice and God was pleased with that sacrifice. Eating from that tree cursed us all and that is why we need Jesus Christ. But if you believe in evolution then Adam and Eve never happened and they did not eat of the fruit of that tree. Then you also don't need Jesus for that original sin. The instant we come into this world we enter into a sin nature.

Also God is a liar because God says that they were made in his image. Not that they evolved from another life form in order to be human.

I and the millions of other theistic evolutionists can assure you that evolution does not make life meaningless. Only a life without God could make life meaningless, and evolution does not require us to give up on God.

There was only a handful of people in the Ark. The rest of the world was on the outside.


I did not come to this message forum to be right but truly to share the truth of God.

Take this how you want but please consider it.

 

[Pats]

Sorry about the paragraphing. Everytime I submit a new message it does that even when I try to make it easier.I am also going to try to quoete some of your stuff that you typed if it doesn't go as a quote sorry but I'm sure you will see it.

Maybe some of the off topic posts on this page will help.

the first verse is figurative. Every person is guilty of saying that the sun rises and sets. Why would God not be allowed to use figurative speech to talk to someone. Also lets say we were having a conversation and I say I have to go to work. It is easy to understand that you would right away know that I have to leave and go to work. But with what I said if you took it as a literal, I would begin working right away.

(Speaking about Ecc. 1:5-7)
5)Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.

6)Going unto the south, and turning round unto the north, turning round, turning round, the wind is going, and by its circuits the wind hath returned. 7)All the streams are going unto the sea, and the sea is not full; unto a place whither the streams are going, thither they are turning back to go.

It all seems to flow together and use the same type of language to me. You can see in this literal translation, they are not simply saying the sun rises and sets. The author is saying that the sun is panting, as if it could breathe.

I challenge you to explaine the planetary rotations to a toddler. A toddler can't understand it untill later on in life when they have been taught this. Or when they can see a picture of the universe and understand that these things are really far away. Back then they had no idea what a trillion miles actually meant. So I would say they had limited resources.

By this same logic, why do you think the creation story is so over simplified in Genesis? Wouldn't it follow that the important "meat" of the story is the fact that God is the creator, the lesson of original sin and a blood and death attonement for sin? With all of these important truths to convey to us, Genesis explains quite simplisticlly that God created, it is not a scientific or historical documentary of how He went about it.

It caused me to get interested in the subject and to explore both sides of the spectrum.

That is good. I hope you keep an open mind to the facts during your exploration.

Not completely following the witnesses thing but in Exodus 20:8-11 it is talking about another topic but it refers to the days in genesis as being literal 24 hour days In Mark 10:6 jesus refers to man and woman being created in the beginning. With the last verse if you believe that jesus was who he said he was and not believe this then Jesus is a liar. But that is your own personal belief

This can be easy to confuse. Ex. 20 is a marking down of the Jewish Law to keep the Sabath. The fact that the Sabath was included in the creation story indicates that it was being celebrated when the story was written. It does provide the Jewish people with a story to demonstrate the importance of the observance of Sabath.

Ex. 20 does not say that the six days of creation were literal. It is a referance to an important story. In order to best understand this, it is important to seek out the usage of mythological stories in ancient eastern cultures. Just as the goat whose life was sacrificed to cover the nudity of Adam and Eve is a picture of Christ's sacrifice to come, God's resting on the seventh day is a picture of the seventh day being set aside and given to God in the form of the Sabath.

When Jews in the New Testament, such as in Matthew refer back to these stories, it was not siginfigant to them how "literal" the stories were. The stories themselves were imbeded into their culture and religious teachings. It is no different that us refering to one of Jesus' parables to show an example from the story.

But then the evidence for evolution can't be 100% unless it can literually be observed.

Science isn't about 100% absolutes. That's not the point. The point is that a body of evidence exists that points to evolution in multiple feilds of science. Christians need to see if creation itself contains clues to better understand the scriptures, and it would seem it does indeed. The more we fight it, the more we have people thinking evolution has to equall atheism, and Christianity has to equal creationism. That is a dangerous place to be.

Random Guy gave me a link to a site that had "29 proofs of macro evolution" The first one on the list from my understanding observed that we all have simularities. To get to the point. All human beings have a hearts and lungs. So do all animals. Does that mean that we are related? Absolutely not. All the living organisms on this planet need to have simulariteis. Otherwise we would not be able to live.

I think Random Guy was attempting to draw your attention to the arguement on that page on HERVs. He offered to answer your questions. Did you ask any?

If thats what you want to believe you can. I think that the proofs of evolution can go with what I said about macro evolution. The observances that they have probably ensure that an organism can live.

Seems like you've singled out one proof you didn't like. What was the link? What were the 28 other proofs?

Some one more familiar with common ancestory and HERVs than myself will surely post more.

Then were are the missing links?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I understand the theory that you can eventually get one animal or plant from another but where are the missing links. Don't show me the micro evolution things because I do believe in that. (variations in a species)

Ther terms "micro" and "macro" evolution were invented by creationists to confuse the issue. Evolution is evolution, it isn't divided into "micro" and "macro."

If I wan't evidence that the moon is made of cheese I am pertty sure I can find it.

Considering that the samples collected from the moon are not made of cheese, I'm certain you could not "proove" it.

I can say that we never have visited the moon so no one knows and that a giant cow was flying through space and dropped off some milk and then it turned into cheese. Thus, the moon. This is very illogical and no one would believe me, but so is evolution.

It is funny that you mention this, because this is exactly how creationism sounds to people who do not know Jesus and are very familiar with science.

Creationism discredits Christianity.

 

[theoddamerican]

And thus this source says that they don't seem to hold their original purpose. It doesn't say that they don't have ANY purpose.

If it doesn't do the original purpose then it is useless.

Utter nonsense. First of all, what is a "kind"? It is not a term that has anything to do with biology or evolution. It is not a scientific term or definition you are giving out here.

Variations in a species

False.

Again false.

Really? As science? please prove this.

If you chose not to see this point then I am not going to force you.

What specifically are you talking about? his embryonic drawings?

If you catch someone in a couple of lies then how credible are the rest of their claims

Actually, you haven't provided ANY meaningful information or even an indication that you have even a little bit of a clue of what you are talking about.

Thats your opinion

You believe that we came from a rock through God I believe that God created us the way we are. Either way it requires faith

 

[theoddamerican]

thanx for the link. I asked someone else for a link and all they did was ridacule me and say that they didn't want to saport me with a dagree or something. To me that sounds like they don't know of any evidence of evolution.

When random Guy sent me the link I asked him about a few things and also about the first one. I have yet to read the other ones but I will eventually read them.

I checked out the site real quick and I was wondering if these animals were the missing links things. In one of the massive post that I posted I think I talked about a few of those things, but don't quote me on that.

The main thing I want to ask would be, Does this argument really matter if we are all christians? I truely do not understand how someone can believe in evolution and believe in God. The big bang is a seperate issue but if all this nothing came together and created something does that mean God used that in your opinion or is it something else.

If we are all Christians then we go to the same place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolution is one species changing to become better. Maby that is evolving into a new species in order to do something better. Is this accurate?

no.
evolution is not a directed process like the flight of an arrow but rather a random investigation of a space like the drunkards walk.

one interesting example that evolution is not directed is the large number of genus' that have both a free living and parasitic species. The parasitic species is less complex having giving up some functions to it's host, yet often the parasitic species clearly evolved later from the free living form.

 

[steen]

But then the evidence for evolution can't be 100% unless it can literually be observed.

Evolution itself IS 100% observed. We have DIRECTLY observed Evolution.

What do YOU think Evolution is? Because obviously, per your remark it seems like your idea of what Evolution is has a significant diversion from the reality of what it is?????

[/quote] Random Guy gave me a link to a site that had "29 proofs of macro evolution" The first one on the list from my understanding observed that we all have simularities. To get to the point. All human beings have a hearts and lungs. So do all animals. Does that mean that we are related? Absolutely not. All the living organisms on this planet need to have simulariteis. Otherwise we would not be able to live.[/quote]And then you stopped and didn't look at the rest, right?

If thats what you want to believe you can. I think that the proofs of evolution can go with what I said about macro evolution. The observances that they have probably ensure that an organism can live.

But the first step is to understand what evolution is and the evidence that shows evolution happens.

Then were are the missing links?

What missing links? See it is remarks like that which confirms the question. You really DON'T have a clue what Evolution is. What "missing links" do we see in Ring Species, f.ex?

I understand the theory that you can eventually get one animal or plant from another but where are the missing links.

See rign species as an example where EVERY intermediary still exists. How exactly did YOU think that change would occur?

Don't show me the micro evolution things because I do believe in that. (variations in a species)

So that is evolution. Does that mean that if we actually give EVIDENCE of one species turning into another, then you will accept the evidence of that as well? What mechanism of "micro-evolution" does not make it possible to see species formation?

If I wan't evidence that the moon is made of cheese I am pertty sure I can find it.

And would any of that evidence be SCIENTIFIC? Are you done with silly sophistry and ready to actually start taking this serious?

I can say that we never have visited the moon so no one knows and that a giant cow was flying through space and dropped off some milk and then it turned into cheese. Thus, the moon.

And how would that be evidence? This is merely postulation and speculation, there would be no actual evidence for your claims.

This is very illogical and no one would believe me, but so is evolution.

It is stupid stuff like this that makes us want to call creationists a lot of bad words and see the whole anti-science industry as deceptive %$#&%^&^#R%. Evolution is based on science and thus has scientific evidence in support of each aspect. Your story about the moon is a "what can I dream up" To claim the two are similar is incredibly deceptive and dishonest and very insulting to us. If all you are trying to do is to insult us and present that we are dumber than mud to not see through your sophistry, then don't expect to be treated with any respect at all. Time to drop the **** and be honest with us instead. If you are only here to try to show how stupid we are, then have the courtesy to take yourself and your dishonest sophistry somewhere else where they LIKE to see you bear false witness like that.

Evolution is one species changing to become better.

No, you are wrong. How can you be so ignorant of evolution and yet claim that it is wrong? The staggering level of dishonesty needed for such behavior as you are showing is disturbing. The deliberate bearing false witness that you are displaying is disgusting.

Maby that is evolving into a new species in order to do something better. Is this accurate?

No.

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

And yes, that is not part of science, as science is not about making up stories. That seems the purvey of people like you with your silly story about the moon and then the very dishonest associating that with science

 

[steen]

Actually I spent about four hours looking through my material then I compared it to a site and it matched up. I believe that you do have a point whith your statement but I assure you that I did do my research. If you believe my or not that I don't care.

It is hard to believe ANYTHING you say by now, particularly when you have such a warped and incorrect view of evolution and of science. Why should we then believe you? If you still know so little about the science, how can we trust you when you claimed to actually have researched it? When bearing false witness before, why should we suddenly believe you now?

When you describe the Earth some people describe it to be round some describe it as a sphere.

Ah, so you are saying that bible translations vary and gets away from the original meaning, based on the bias of the translator?

I agree with what the purpose of science is.

Do you KNOW what science is, even? With your silly tirade about the moon and "example of evidence of the moon as made of cheese, then you show that you know just about NOTHING about science. So are you bearing false witness again, or are you merely trying to speak to what you know absolutely nothing about?

I also believe that we need to God's revelation for understanding.

Isn't that nice. So? You again show an utter cluelessness and ignorance about Science. Do you even KNOW what Science is?

When you involve evolution whith God to explaine how it happened

Who does this? Be careful about lobbing false accusations all over the place.

you also unknowingly take the need out for a savior.

"need" Are you saying that God is a matter of evidence rather than Faith? You really are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of absolutely no credibility, and only showing farcical sophistry, nothing else. It is very insulting.

With evolution though, death was needed for life. But with what the bible teaches the choices of life caused death. (Genesis chapter 3)

So? Evolution and Science makes no claim about God, just as God makes no claim about science.

The entire Bible ties into one thing and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the Christ as a perfect sacrifice and God was pleased with that sacrifice. Eating from that tree cursed us all and that is why we need Jesus Christ.

Yes?

But if you believe in evolution

Actually, we don't "believe" in science and evolution. Rather, we accept the EVIDENCE. Science is not about belief, only about what can be shown by the evidence. Once again, your level of knowledge about even the most basic aspects of science is astonishing. You continue to insult us by your incessant bearing false witness about science.

then Adam and Eve never happened and they did not eat of the fruit of that tree.

Sure, why not? Why do you try to say that Scientific Evidence somehow affects the Bible and God?

Then you also don't need Jesus for that original sin.

What do you mean with "need"? The issue when it comes to Jesus, God, sin etc is about FAITH, not scientific evidence.

If you need EVIDENCE of God, then you are like the Israelites building a Golden calf. Is THAT the foundation for your posts here?

The instant we come into this world we enter into a sin nature.

So?

Also God is a liar because God says that they were made in his image. Not that they evolved from another life form in order to be human.

Again, what does Scientific Evidence have to do with God? What does God have to do with Scientific Evidence? Your sophistry makes no sense at all.

There was only a handful of people in the Ark. The rest of the world was on the outside.

And what does that have to do with what was said?

I did not come to this message forum to be right but truly to share the truth of God.

And you think that by making claims that have no bearing on reality, bearing false witness etc, you come across as anything but irritating? Posts like your drive people AWAY from God.

Take this how you want but please consider it.

Oh, I am considering it, alright. I consider it silly sophistry, dishonesty and display of insulting ignorance as you couldn't even be bothered to know what it is you speak out against. Congratulation for further confirming people's stereotype of Christians as ignorant buffoons.

 

[steen]

If it doesn't do the original purpose then it is useless.

An outright falsehood. When vestigial organs serve other purposes, then that by itself shows your claim wrong. You are again bearing false witness.

Variations in a species

Really? The direct translation of "kind" is "Variations in a species"? Or are you saying that "Kind" is exactly the same as "species"? The first is nonsense, the second directly proves your claims wrong by scientific evidence. So which is it?

If you chose not to see this point then I am not going to force you.

Translation: "I am going to make silly claims, and if I get challenged on the accuracy of the claims, then I am going to run away." yes, you truly are not the best witness for Jesus here.

If you catch someone in a couple of lies then how credible are the rest of their claims

And how do you know that he lied rather than that the evidence he had at the time wasn't good enough? Now, exactly WHAT part of Hackle's data is it you are criticizing?

Thats your opinion

No, that is obvious. With your silly, deceptive sophistry and incredibly ignorant remarks about even the most basic aspects of science, not to mention the IDIOTIC stunt about the moon and cheese and claiming that tirade as "evidence," it is very clear that as I said, you haven't provided ANY meaningful information or even an indication that you have even a little bit of a clue of what you are talking about.

You believe that we came from a rock through God

No, I don't STOP lying about me.

I believe that God created us the way we are. Either way it requires faith

Once again, you are displaying your astonishing ignorance of what Science is. Not that we should in any way be surprised.

 

[steen]

The main thing I want to ask would be, Does this argument really matter if we are all christians?

It matters in science.

I truely do not understand how someone can believe in evolution and believe in God.

I must recommend you shy away from that kind of argument, as it is getting dangerously close to breaking a forum rule. Suffice to say that your inability to understand something doesn't mean that your concern is valid.

The big bang is a seperate issue but if all this nothing came together and created something does that mean God used that in your opinion or is it something else.

As you said, its a separate issue. And you also didn't make any recognizable point here.

If we are all Christians then we go to the same place.

And?

 

[Pats]

thanx for the link.

I'm not sure if you were refering to me. But I think you were, and you're welcome.

I checked out the site real quick and I was wondering if these animals were the missing links things. In one of the massive post that I posted I think I talked about a few of those things, but don't quote me on that.

I've had a hard time following this post.

The entire page contains a lot of information about transisionary fossils.

The main thing I want to ask would be, Does this argument really matter if we are all christians?

It matters to Christians, yes.

God created us intelegant beings who were meant to inspect the world around ourselves and question how it works. If we did not, it would not only take away from theoris such as evolution but medicine and other vital feilds as well.

It matters to me as a Christian because God sent the scriptures to us for a reason, and I want to do my best do endevour to understand what is being said to me through them.

It matters to me as a Christian because I believe that God is intamately involved with His creation from the begining of time through to the present and on into the future.

I truely do not understand how someone can believe in evolution and believe in God.

Perhaps you have only been exposed to teachings that would lead you to believe otherwise. I can recall a time when I was unaware of Theistic Evolutionists. However, upon meeting them I recognized immedeately that they were Christians indeed. I recommend you read more of what your fellow Christians who accept evolutionary theory have to say before you make posts that may be interprated as insulting.

The big bang is a seperate issue but if all this nothing came together and created something does that mean God used that in your opinion or is it something else.

It does not sound like you've really got any idea what the Big Bang theory is. I'd read up on it.

I neither deny respected scientists and their theories and conclusions nor Christianity. Meaning I believe God created, but not in the manner "literally" described in Genesis.

If we are all Christians then we go to the same place.

You can find the General Theology and Christian Appologetics forums else where for discussion on that topic.

 

[Shane Roach]

It is hard to believe ANYTHING you say by now, particularly when you have such a warped and incorrect view of evolution and of science. Why should we then believe you? If you still know so little about the science, how can we trust you when you claimed to actually have researched it? When bearing false witness before, why should we suddenly believe you now?

Ah, so you are saying that bible translations vary and gets away from the original meaning, based on the bias of the translator?

Do you KNOW what science is, even? With your silly tirade about the moon and "example of evidence of the moon as made of cheese, then you show that you know just about NOTHING about science. So are you bearing false witness again, or are you merely trying to speak to what you know absolutely nothing about?

Isn't that nice. So? You again show an utter cluelessness and ignorance about Science. Do you even KNOW what Science is?

Who does this? Be careful about lobbing false accusations all over the place.

"need" Are you saying that God is a matter of evidence rather than Faith? You really are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of absolutely no credibility, and only showing farcical sophistry, nothing else. It is very insulting.

So? Evolution and Science makes no claim about God, just as God makes no claim about science.

Yes?

Actually, we don't "believe" in science and evolution. Rather, we accept the EVIDENCE. Science is not about belief, only about what can be shown by the evidence. Once again, your level of knowledge about even the most basic aspects of science is astonishing. You continue to insult us by your incessant bearing false witness about science.

Sure, why not? Why do you try to say that Scientific Evidence somehow affects the Bible and God?

What do you mean with "need"? The issue when it comes to Jesus, God, sin etc is about FAITH, not scientific evidence.

If you need EVIDENCE of God, then you are like the Israelites building a Golden calf. Is THAT the foundation for your posts here?

So?

Again, what does Scientific Evidence have to do with God? What does God have to do with Scientific Evidence? Your sophistry makes no sense at all.

And what does that have to do with what was said?

And you think that by making claims that have no bearing on reality, bearing false witness etc, you come across as anything but irritating? Posts like your drive people AWAY from God.

Oh, I am considering it, alright. I consider it silly sophistry, dishonesty and display of insulting ignorance as you couldn't even be bothered to know what it is you speak out against. Congratulation for further confirming people's stereotype of Christians as ignorant buffoons.

Gen 1:24-31
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
KJV

Rom 5:14
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
KJV

1 Cor 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
KJV

1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
KJV

1 Tim 2:13-14
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
KJV

Jude 14
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam , prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
KJV


Lie detector eh?

And insulting people and accusing them of lying just because they do not buy evolution? Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?

Lie detector indeed.

You needn't bother worrying yourself over me. The fact that this website still allows people like you to run roughshod over folks is all the evidence I need that it is still not run with proper Christian discipline in mind.

I do not insist people have to be Creationists, though frankly I am about an inch from being a hard core creationist myself, but one thing I do know and that is that bullying and casting aspersions at people is simply not acceptable. I simply can't bring myself to come to these sections of these forums because sooner or later all I hear in my mind is this:

1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV


It seems these are the only people allowed on the open forums.

"Lie detector". I think that in and of itself speaks volumes about you. So, you think some people push people away from God?

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
KJV


There's more to the faith than collecting hangers on.

 

[Shane Roach]

I can't believe this... this is the Christians Only section???

And you insult people for believing the Bible instead of scientists who largely admit they do not believe in God at all...?

Well, it just gets worse and worse.

 

[random_guy]

I can't believe this... this is the Christians Only section???

And you insult people for believing the Bible instead of scientists who largely admit they do not believe in God at all...?

Well, it just gets worse and worse.

Who says we don't believe in the Bible? We take different interpretations than literalists. Not only that, should we also not believe in Germ Theory since scientists came up with it, and according to you, they largely don't believe in the Bible (also ignoring that there are many Christians on this board who are also scientists)?

EDIT:

Also, do you think SMU (Southern Methodist University) which also teaches evolution in biology thinks evolution can't be tested or that they don't believe in the Bible? It is false to say that evolution can't be tested. If it were true, then evolution isn't a science. However, nearly every single biology program in the nation teaches evolution and nearly every scientific organization supports evolution as a science. Not only that, there has been thousands of tests on evolution. It seems if anything, either you don't understand science, your bias makes it so you don't accept evolution as scientific, or you don't understand scientific version of evolution. Why don't you back up your claim that evolution can't be tested.

For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.


The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.

Please show me where in this paragraph that the botanist didn't follow the scientific method.

 

[steen]

....Lie detector eh?

Eh?

And insulting people and accusing them of lying just because they do not buy evolution?

Nope. Why the misrepresentation? Can you only make an argument through misrepresentation?

Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?

This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic.

Lie detector indeed.

Well, I am catching your's, like the drivel about Biology and scientific experiments.

You needn't bother worrying yourself over me. The fact that this website still allows people like you to run roughshod over folks is all the evidence I need that it is still not run with proper Christian discipline in mind.

Ah, yes. Where is the Spanish Inquisition when you need it to badger science back into submission and reject the Scientific Method. Shameful, isn't it, that making claims about science can actually result in having to justify the claim through scientific evidence. Much easier to just make a claim of dogma and send the inquisition after those who disagree. Much easier back then in the good old days.

I do not insist people have to be Creationists, though frankly I am about an inch from being a hard core creationist myself,

So?

but one thing I do know and that is that bullying and casting aspersions at people is simply not acceptable.

Ah like you did above?

I simply can't bring myself to come to these sections of these forums because sooner or later all I hear in my mind is this:

1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV

OK, whatever floats your boat.

It seems these are the only people allowed on the open forums.

These?

"Lie detector". I think that in and of itself speaks volumes about you.

Yes? What volumes are they? You are not going to let us hang here in suspense, are you? please enlighten us as to the volumes.

So, you think some people push people away from God?

Well, when people come here and see Christians bearing false witness, then that's a definite turnoff. It saddens me that this is all creationists seem to do here.

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
KJV

OK, whatever floats your boat.

There's more to the faith than collecting hangers on.

So?

 

[steen]

I can't believe this... this is the Christians Only section???

<checking> Yup. yes it is.

And you insult people for believing the Bible instead of scientists

Nope.

who largely admit they do not believe in God at all...?

really? Would you mind proving that wild and unsubstantiated claim?

Well, it just gets worse and worse.

With tirades and nonsense claims about science? yes, it does. We seem to be woefully undereducating in science these days. We need to seriously boost science teachings and testing requirements if we are to pull ahead again globally.

 

[Assyrian]

Gen 1:24-31
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
KJV

It is a pity YECs do not believe what Genesis tells us, that God commanded the earth to produce all the different kinds of animals.

Rom 5:14
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
KJV

Notice how Paul is interpreting Adam figuratively?

1 Cor 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
KJV

How do people die (present tense) in Adam who according to the story has long been turned to dust? The only way for present day living people to 'die in Adam' is if Adam is a figurative representation of the fallen human race.

1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
KJV

How was Jesus the last Adam? What about Adam Smith? Adam and the Ants? Adam West? Of course Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man' but Jesus is hardly the last man either. Paul goes on
1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
How was Jesus the second man? The OT is full of men who were born before Jesus. Paul is speaking apocalyptically here. There are only two men in his allegory, the first man Adam who is the whole fallen human race and the second man, also the last man (last adam), Jesus Christ the son of God who also includes all the redeemed 'in Christ'.

1 Tim 2:13-14
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
KJV

Lets quote the verses around it.
1Tim 2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Why should the order of creation establish the relationship between men and women or between husband and wife? What if the woman was older, wouldn't that mean the man should be the one to keep quiet? However Paul seems to be treating the story of Adam and Eve as if it was a picture of how men and women or husbands and wives should relate. In other words he is treating the story as if it were an allegory for our relationships.

How is a woman supposed to be saved through bearing children? I think Paul is continuing the allegorical interpretation. Eve is all women, and the promise to Eve was that her seed would crush the serpent. Women are saved through the birth of a child, Jesus.

Jude 14
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam , prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
KJV

Certainly the seventh from Adam in Genesis, but Jude does not interpret the relationship any further than that. Seventh generation? Seventh patriarch? Seventh in the list?

1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
KJV

I think this is pretty ironic given that neither Jesus nor Paul ever taught six day creationism

So, you think some people push people away from God?
1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
KJV

It is not just antichrists (verse 18) who leave the church. Some are pushed out. 3John 1:9 ...but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.
10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.

Others stumble and fall away because of Christians. Luke 17:1 He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" Jesus said this to his disciples.

 

[Shane Roach]

In the rush to defend evolution, somehow all of you neglected to address the actual difference I pointed out.

Could it be because underneath all the bluster there IS no answer?