Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[david_x]

And what if those who show the fruits of the Spirit disagree about how long it took to create the universe? Who is hearing the Spirit correctly? How do you know?

okay, were is such a scenerio. It probiably means someone is not spending enough time with God.

And what if those who show the fruits of the Spirit disagree about how long it took to create the universe? Who is hearing the Spirit correctly? How do you know?

are you saying people should forget that there are different colored people in exhistance! that is ignoring simple evidence.

 

[gluadys]

okay, were is such a scenerio. It probiably means someone is not spending enough time with God.

And how would you tell who that somebody is?

 

[invisible trousers]

if they disagree with you

 

[david_x]

And how would you tell who that somebody is?

Good question, i can diagnose but cureing is another thing altogether

 

[gluadys]

Good question, i can diagnose but cureing is another thing altogether

You think you can diagnose? You have to diagnose before you can cure. But you haven't shown the basis of your diagnosis yet. How will you know who to cure if you can't tell who needs curing?

Or is invisible trousers right? In practice your diagnosis is based on whether or not other Christians agree with you.

 

[LoG]

Good question, i can diagnose but cureing is another thing altogether

You think you can diagnose? You have to diagnose before you can cure. But you haven't shown the basis of your diagnosis yet. How will you know who to cure if you can't tell who needs curing?

When the inner witness does not line up with the Scripture, can it be from God?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Above this is the Greenhorn limestone. The limestones are made mostly of coccoliths, small skeletal remains approximately 3-5 micrometers in diameter. This formation is about 40 ft thick and consists of 16 ledge-forming, burrowed limestone beds separated by thin shales. Over a distance of 450 miles the ledges lie on and below persistent bentonite (volcanic ash beds). The parallelism proves that the ledges are synchronous across their extent. The coccoliths had to grow in the water, and then die and fall to the bottom. After this, organisms had to burrow into the sediment. When the coccoliths were not as productive in the waters above, shale was deposited, separating the limestone beds. All of this required still water

okay...so the coccoliths had to die...fall to the bottom...and while dead burrow into the silt??? never saw a dead thing burrow....

The Pierre shale is rich in organic matter and it is almost entirely contained in the fecal pellets. Marine reptile bones are concentrated in the Sharon Springs member. Note in all the above, that the fossils are not sorted as Morris would assume by ecological zonation. This marine bed is above the Morrison bed which contains the dinosaurs

umm....again a contradiction of the evolutionary process...in the evidence intended to support it...

these are just the 2 that stand out from scanning the page you linked...I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I just don't buy empirical evidence that contradicts itself over the word of G-d, which doesn't.

 

[gluadys]

When the inner witness does not line up with the Scripture, can it be from God?

When the inner witness does not line up with scripture, it may be telling you that you need to make some changes in how you interpret scripture. Your assumption that you already know the meaning of scripture may be blocking you from learning what God is trying to teach you in scripture.

 

[gluadys]

okay...so the coccoliths had to die...fall to the bottom...and while dead burrow into the silt??? never saw a dead thing burrow....

No, you missed a word.

First:

The coccoliths had to grow in the water, and then die and fall to the bottom.

Then

After this, organisms [i.e. other organisms, not the coccoliths]had to burrow into the sediment.

The organisms are burrowing into silt which consists of the remains of the dead coccoliths.

umm....again a contradiction of the evolutionary process...in the evidence intended to support it...

What contradiction did you see in this excerpt? It was not obvious to me.

 

[LoG]

When the inner witness does not line up with scripture, it may be telling you that you need to make some changes in how you interpret scripture. Your assumption that you already know the meaning of scripture may be blocking you from learning what God is trying to teach you in scripture.

Lol, you're good gluadys. You a lawyer or politician in real life?

That may be a point, but if there are 6000 years of other believers that have had the Spirit tell them the same thing than it likely isn't the Scripture that needs to be reinterpreted.

 

[Gwenyfur]

the ecological zonation of the geologic column...the fossils are out of order

 

[gluadys]

Lol, you're good gluadys. You a lawyer or politician in real life?

That may be a point, but if there are 6000 years of other believers that have had the Spirit tell them the same thing than it likely isn't the Scripture that needs to be reinterpreted.

No matter how ancient the interpretation, if it is wrong, it must eventually give way to truth.

Look at how many traditions Jesus destroyed: the traditional image of the Messiah, the traditional separation of Jew and Gentile, the traditional division of foods into clean and unclean, etc.

In science, the ancient tradition of a flat earth gave way to that of a spherical earth, over the protests of early Christian scholars that the new Greek idea was unscriptural. And 1600 years later, the tradition of a motionless earth surrounded by crystalline spheres spinning around it to move the celestial bodies gave way to the evidence of an open solar system and a possibly infinite univers. (Of course 20th century science has given us still a new vision of an unbounded but finite universe.)

Jesus promised the Spirit would lead us into all Truth. He did not say all the traditions of 6,000 years ago were truth, nor that the Spirit would act within a decade. It took the Spirit 1800 years from Christ's resurrection to impress on Christians that slavery was wrong. There are Christians who are still convinced that women should be barred from some offices in the church.

It is important to honour traditional interpretations and not to be eager to overthrow them. But it is just as important to move when the Spirit says move, and leave obsolete interpretations behind.

And no, I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, although my ministry keeps me involved in politics. I work in policy development, education, advocacy and mobilisation for the public witness of Canadian churches. Some of the issues I have worked on are climate change, health care, racism, globalization of the economy, refugee protection, human rights and peacemaking.

If you scroll down to "Reports" on
this page you will see some recent samples of my work. I edited all these reports and wrote parts of all of them.

 

[shernren]

okay, were is such a scenerio. It probiably means someone is not spending enough time with God.

And did God Himself tell you that the evolutionists have been skipping their Quiet Time more than the creationists?

The entire problem with this issue is that the "witness of the Holy Spirit" is a subjective, internal witness. What is the external corroboration? To some extent, changed lives. But in the first place, on an online meeting-place it is difficult to see each others' lives transparently. In the second place, we don't have the objective facts needed to judge each others' progress, even if the other person is willing to be accountable to you. If we watched Naaman after being healed by Elijah going back to the Temple in Philistia and bowing before Dagon with his master, we might well conclude that Naaman had "backslidden" and become a faithless heathen again. But we know from Scripture that in fact reducing his allegiance to this one act of worship was already the ultimate turn-around for Naaman.

Subjective witness needs to be corroborated by objective witness. What do we have that is objective? We have Scripture. But that is exactly what we are arguing over and each side says he is supported by Scripture.

We have the consensus of the saints. At doctrinal councils this is how doctrine has been decided for the church over the ages. But the consensus of the saints towards "YECism" has only been when there were no alternatives, and where scientific matters did not weigh into decision. In modern Christianity there is no unity of the saints on this one issue.

And finally, we will be able to ask God face to face when we meet Him. But obviously that objective criterion is not available for us today.

Before we are able to corroborate external and internal criteria, it is dangerous to claim the judgment of the Holy Spirit as a personal reason for believing or rejecting something.

 

[notto]

I will speak for Gwenyfur in that the theory of evolution is still using out-dated disproven info in their books. The common fetis "alikeness" thingy-chart is emensly biased.

What book? What publisher? What context?

Often the drawing that you are talking about is used in a historical sense and it is explained as being less than accurate.

Do you have a specific exampel of one of 'their' books that is using out dated disproven info?

To make a claim like this, specifics are usually desirable. Especially when you claim is as suspicious as yours.

You also have to remember that textbook publishers are not research labs or scientists themselves and if they use outdated information, it is not necessarily any conspiracy and might just be due to lazy editors. If that is the case, then there isn't a scientists alive who wouldn't back the effort to get these things changed. The first step in doing that is to identifiy the title and publisher of the book in question.

Can you do that for us?

 

[notto]

okay...so the coccoliths had to die...fall to the bottom...and while dead burrow into the silt??? never saw a dead thing burrow....

umm....again a contradiction of the evolutionary process...in the evidence intended to support it...

these are just the 2 that stand out from scanning the page you linked...I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I just don't buy empirical evidence that contradicts itself over the word of G-d, which doesn't.

If this is about the geologic column, that has nothing to do with evolution. We are evaluating the claim that the column exists nowhere but in textbooks. I don't see how either of these things you mentions demonstrates that claim as true or shows that the entire column is not found in North Dakota.

Are you saying that these layers don't exist? Let's just focus on the original claim about the geologic column only existing in textbooks. The page I provided directly contradicts that and shows that all of the layers can be found in a single core drilling in North Dakota.

What evidence do you have that this is not the case?

 

[gal4God]

its a theroy but not a proven fact. never will b so it shoundn't b seen as 1.

 

[notto]

its a theroy but not a proven fact. never will b so it shoundn't b seen as 1.

Actually, its both.

The theory of evolution explains the fact that life in the past was much different than life to day and this change occured slowly over much time and many generations.

 

[david_x]

You think you can diagnose? You have to diagnose before you can cure. But you haven't shown the basis of your diagnosis yet. How will you know who to cure if you can't tell who needs curing?

I didn't diagnose the person, but the problem.

What book? What publisher? What context?

Often the drawing that you are talking about is used in a historical sense and it is explained as being less than accurate.

Do you have a specific exampel of one of 'their' books that is using out dated disproven info?

To make a claim like this, specifics are usually desirable. Especially when you claim is as suspicious as yours.

You also have to remember that textbook publishers are not research labs or scientists themselves and if they use outdated information, it is not necessarily any conspiracy and might just be due to lazy editors. If that is the case, then there isn't a scientists alive who wouldn't back the effort to get these things changed. The first step in doing that is to identifiy the title and publisher of the book in question.

Can you do that for us?

All of them(nearly)! Duh think about it. Have you ever seen that chart before? I know my biology teacher was keen on pointing it out. And yes it is mostly do to apathy.

 

[john crawford]

Irrelevant.

I take your lack of objection to mean you agree the biblical story of origins is just as "racist" as evolution, and, in fact, that no theory of human origin or variation could be anything but "racist" by your criterion.

That would be just another assumption on your part besides being irrelevent to the topic of the thread.

 

[gluadys]

That would be just another assumption on your part besides being irrelevent to the topic of the thread.

Yes, guilty as charged. Any response to any of your posts would be irrelevant to the topic of the thread.