-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Debate....
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 02:35 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #195 First of all, we are not even all that interested in Creation"ism". We know that God created the Heaven and the Earth and that is all we need to know.
Who's "we", paleface? If that were the case, you could all be theistic evolutionists. Instead, FoC is very interested in creationism.
But the fact is, Adam and Eve are very historical. What we have in the Bible, from Chapter two on, is historical. There is lots of written history outside of the Bible, to back it all up.
Back it "all" up? Whjat written history outside Judeo-Christian writings talks about the Garden of Eden? Where is Abraham mentioned? How about the "heavenly beings" in Genesis 5? Noah? Moses. Joshua. Jacob. Sarah was supposed to have been married to a pharoah of Egypt. Where is the Egyptian confirmation of that? Pretty big scandal, to have Pharoah marry an already married woman (not to mention the questionable morals of her husband to give her to another man). Where is the mention of that?
Adam and Eve are allegorical, not historical.
I'm surprised that you are allowing Adam and Eve to have "evolved". Up until now you've insisted that they were created as specified in Genesis 2.
Who's "we", paleface? If that were the case, you could all be theistic evolutionists. Instead, FoC is very interested in creationism.
But the fact is, Adam and Eve are very historical. What we have in the Bible, from Chapter two on, is historical. There is lots of written history outside of the Bible, to back it all up.
Back it "all" up? Whjat written history outside Judeo-Christian writings talks about the Garden of Eden? Where is Abraham mentioned? How about the "heavenly beings" in Genesis 5? Noah? Moses. Joshua. Jacob. Sarah was supposed to have been married to a pharoah of Egypt. Where is the Egyptian confirmation of that? Pretty big scandal, to have Pharoah marry an already married woman (not to mention the questionable morals of her husband to give her to another man). Where is the mention of that?
Adam and Eve are allegorical, not historical.
I'm surprised that you are allowing Adam and Eve to have "evolved". Up until now you've insisted that they were created as specified in Genesis 2.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
The Bible is considered a book of theology. Science in general, had no problem with theology right up 'tell Darwin came along. Then there was a rebellion and as is the case with rebellions of this sort, 2/3 of the so called "scientists" follow Darwin in his rebellion. Just like 2/3 of mankind in general is following satan in his rebellion against God.
Although Darwin never rejected the morality of the Bible, and always admired his wife and friends for their christian morality.
That is not a option. The Bible has been tested, tried and found to be true. It has been accepted as truth for 3500 years. It will continue to go right on being truth if you accept it, beleive it or understand it, does not change that it is truth.
I am just more interested in history right now than science. But with all the DNA research, science needs to study up on history a bit more. They are not going to get away with their generalities anymore. They are going to need to get their theories to line up with what we historically know to be true.
Esp. sense a lot of history is based on archology and that is a branch of science. So you can not have one branch of science in conflict or contradiction with another branch of science.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
John, PLEASE. How can the Bible change? It is a book! The Iliad hasn't changed either. Does that mean that the Greek pantheon exists? It's a completely silly argument.
Actually, the facts don't change. What happens is that new facts are discovered. But the old ones are still there. It's how knowledge advances -- you find new facts.
Now, if you want to look at the Bible again, hasn't the Bible changed within 2500 years? (The Bible was composed between 1,000 and 500 BC.) After all, originally the Bible consisted of just the Pentateuch. If your statement were correct, that means the NT was never added. Didn't David and others add the Psalms?
Even within the context of the Bible, your statement is not correct. What's worse, the theory of Judaism changed with the new "fact" of Jesus. Paul had to revamp traditional Judaism in the light of this new "fact".
I think that really is a "Bible collage" you attend, and not a college. Even if you were falling asleep in class every day, such ingnorance of the Bible and its history would not be possible.
Upvote
0
Smilin
Spirit of the Wolf
- Jun 18, 2002
- 5,650
- 244
- 59
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
And here's where I swoop in. If you accept Adam and Eve as ancesterol parents of humanity? What race were they? All the painting I've seen depicting them show them white? why?
How do you explain racial diversity from a single set of parents?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 02:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post URL="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=751211#post751211"]#204[/URL
The Bible is considered a book of theology. Science in general, had no problem with theology right up 'tell Darwin came along.
LOL!! Haven't you been paying attention to the fact the Flood was falsified by 1831. Darwin was still playing around on the Beagle and evolution wasn't even a gleam in his eye or notation in his notebooks.
Also, don't you remember the brouhahah over heliocentrism? Science had a big problem with theology incorporating a wrong theory into it.
That is not a option. The Bible has been tested, tried and found to be true. It has been accepted as truth for 3500 years.
Theological or scientific? Also, Jews don't accept the NT as true, do they?
I am just more interested in history right now than science. But with all the DNA research, science needs to study up on history a bit more. They are not going to get away with their generalities anymore. They are going to need to get their theories to line up with what we historically know to be true.
You mean, "with what we would like to be historically true". Science can't do what you want. Science can only line up with experience of the physical universe.
Esp. sense a lot of history is based on archology and that is a branch of science. So you can not have one branch of science in conflict or contradiction with another branch of science.
And what archeological discovery has made Adam and Eve historical people? Or Noah for that matter?
The Bible is considered a book of theology. Science in general, had no problem with theology right up 'tell Darwin came along.
LOL!! Haven't you been paying attention to the fact the Flood was falsified by 1831. Darwin was still playing around on the Beagle and evolution wasn't even a gleam in his eye or notation in his notebooks.
Also, don't you remember the brouhahah over heliocentrism? Science had a big problem with theology incorporating a wrong theory into it.
That is not a option. The Bible has been tested, tried and found to be true. It has been accepted as truth for 3500 years.
Theological or scientific? Also, Jews don't accept the NT as true, do they?
I am just more interested in history right now than science. But with all the DNA research, science needs to study up on history a bit more. They are not going to get away with their generalities anymore. They are going to need to get their theories to line up with what we historically know to be true.
You mean, "with what we would like to be historically true". Science can't do what you want. Science can only line up with experience of the physical universe.
Esp. sense a lot of history is based on archology and that is a branch of science. So you can not have one branch of science in conflict or contradiction with another branch of science.
And what archeological discovery has made Adam and Eve historical people? Or Noah for that matter?
Upvote
0
You mean in a single generation? That's not how evolution works. Is that how you think evolution works?
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
The Jews not accepting the NT is irrelevant.
Romans states the Jews have been partially hardened (blinded) because of their unbelief (which I wonder about you as well)
Romans states the Jews have been partially hardened (blinded) because of their unbelief (which I wonder about you as well)
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Well, of course.
We all know us big dumb creationists are just as smart as rocks.
Now say something intelligent for me so I can admire your great big brain...
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale
3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15).
1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Mutate one serine to alanine and change limb # from multiple limbs of crustaceans to 6 limbs of insects.
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Upvote
0
Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Looks like lucaspa beat you to it.......Today at 03:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #214
Well, of course.
We all know us big dumb creationists are just as smart as rocks.
Now say something intelligent for me so I can admire your great big brain...
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Remember the claims, FoC, always remember the claims.
JohnR7 said: "It has been accepted as truth for 3500 years. "
Well, the Jews accept the OT as truth but not the NT. (of course, John's statement is in trouble since the Bible hasn't been around 3500 years.)
Doesn't matter why the Jews don't accept the NT as true, whether Paul's obvious self-serving excuse or another reason, they don't. And that refutes JohnR7's claim.
Look, FoC, I think you had better remember the parable of the dust mote and beam. Of course, your apostasy is showing again: equating your interpretation of the Bible with true belief and saying that anyone who disagrees with you has "unbelief". You haven't figured out yet (despite all the evidence) that someone can disagree with you and still have belief. The only way to be blind to that is to believe that you are god.
Upvote
0
Nice duck of the data again. Admire the data, FoC. Of course, if you could be honest enough to admit that the data falsifies your claims, that would be even better. But I'm not going to lose any sleep waiting.Follower of Christ
Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
I say nothing of agreeing with me. I could not care less about how I am viewed.
It is agreeing with His word (unconditionally) that is the only thing that matters
It is agreeing with His word (unconditionally) that is the only thing that matters
Upvote
0
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. I've seen other creationists that think, if evolution is true, rabbits should be giving birth to squirrels or something.
But back to the barrier issue. In a single generation or even a handful of generations, you're not going to see much evidence of evolutionary change. In fact, you probably won't even see the formation of a new rabbit species (something you accept, remember?).
However, between each generation are changes, however small. It's the compounding of those changes over time that give rise to brand new species (whether new species of rabbits or something we might no longer call rabbits). From a generation to generation standpoint, you're not going to see much change. But, as you pick points further and further apart between generations, more change will be evident (of course, this is entirely dependent on other factors; selection pressures and so forth).
The problem, I think, is some people don't see that changes are compounded; that, in fact, evolution is recursive. They see each individual step as being exactly the same (rabbits giving birth to rabbits), and neglect to compound variation from generation to generation. Maybe I should make a visual to illustrate this.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
