River Jordan
Well-Known Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 799
- 347
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
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.
And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.Think about what you just wrote
The Periodic table is not made up. The elements have grown since I was in High School - as we "discovered" new elements. None of the elements are "made up"
Science discovers.
When you create all things...., that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him. Then inherently means "ex nihilo"I don't deny this. But the fact of the matter is, you deny all the translations that I've shared above. The second sentence in particular begins with "And" which is to say, it is not a result of creation but rather is part of the initial state that is to be created over 6 days. Creation is not done in verse 1. It is in 6 days.
But further, creation does not inherently mean "ex nihilo". I can create a work of art. I can create a football team. Or even a recipe, or a piece of furniture. I can create many things, but that doesn't mean that materially those things were not present before I created them.
there has been no discovery of macro evolution.And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.
No it doesn't mean that it inherently means ex nihilo.When you create all things...., that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him. Then it inherently means "ex nihilo"
and
/an(d),(ə)n(d)/
conjunction
1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.
Go back and read Genesis 1:1 as I posted it. You will finally see clearly the 1st day...If you can get the 1st day correct, I'm confident you will get the remaining days correct.
This is the first day.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
don't buy into the game of "making thing up" If God said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" You should listen...and to teach against that...well, I'll just not recommend it.
Yes there has. Haven't you seen some of the examples of the evolution of new species people have posted to this forum over the years?there has been no discovery of macro evolution.
Scientists have documented a small percentage of animal species, with some estimates suggesting less than 20% of Earth's total species have been scientifically described. The vast majority, estimated to be about 86% of all species, remain undiscovered, and many are believed to be going extinct before they can be identified.Yes there has. Haven't you seen some of the examples of the evolution of new species people have posted to this forum over the years?
If not I can dig some up for you if it makes a difference. However if you won't believe any of it anyways please let me know.
If "In the Beginning" you create a heaven and a earth - I'm comfortable with it inherently meaning ex nihilo - you can think otherwise.No it doesn't mean that it inherently means ex nihilo.
Isaiah 54:16 NIV
See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc.
When God creates things, even the heavens and the earth, He can create them using pre existing materials, just as He can create anything else using pre existing materials, like a blacksmith for example in the passage above.
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but I'll take it as an indication that whether or not scientists have observed the evolution of new species doesn't matter to you.Scientists have documented a small percentage of animal species, with some estimates suggesting less than 20% of Earth's total species have been scientifically described. The vast majority, estimated to be about 86% of all species, remain undiscovered, and many are believed to be going extinct before they can be identified.
Undocumented species:
Scientists estimate there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth, but only a fraction of those have been documented.
Finding one of he over 80% of species we have not documented is not an example of the evolution of new species
...and again - The Bible tells everything that was created took 6 days....and the geneologies tell us the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago.
Ok. We can agree to disagree then. But let's be clear, the text doesn't actually clarify the matter.If "In the Beginning" you create a heaven and a earth - I'm comfortable with it inherently meaning ex nihilo - you can think otherwise.
I think most people would understand that "In the Beginning" would mean "before there was anything". But you can think otherwise.
and if Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over - I'm pretty sure most would think there was some ex nihilo going on there. but you can think otherwise
I was aiming for irony there.I think it's pretty clear what was meant. Apparently he thinks evolutionary biologists go into work and do nothing but sit around imagining things all day.
I'm having difficulty thinking of a statement that would be further from the truth. Which of the many lines of evidence for common descent have you studied in the most depth? Endogenous retroviruses? Pseudogenes? Biogeography? Transition-to-transversion ratios?Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it.
We are still looking for evidence to support it.
Might I ask what your expertise in science is to be making such a pronouncement? I ask because scientists worldwide think evolutionary biology is a science, as do research universities, science funding agencies, scientific journals, professional scientific associations, national academies of science, philosophers of science, and historians of science. Clearly, you think you understand science better than all of those folks -- so how'd you learn so much?That is not science.
You agree that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over would imply ex nihilo?And Jesus feeding the 5,000 doesn't have anything to do with Genesis.
Show me the best evidence for macro evolution.Might I ask what your expertise in science is to be making such a pronouncement? I ask because scientists worldwide think evolutionary biology is a science, as do research universities, science funding agencies, scientific journals, professional scientific associations, national academies of science, philosophers of science, and historians of science. Clearly, you think you understand science better than all of those folks -- so how'd you learn so much?
That's how I've always understood it.You agree that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had 12 baskets left over would imply ex nihilo?
Oh, my mistake.I was aiming for irony there.
Quibbling? Before 2025 studies, Dr. Tour correctly states the biologist's claimed similarity:The very first claim he makes is wrong. He says that the justification for saying humans are related to chimps is because we share 99.5% of their DNA. That's not accurate.
Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms. If our genome were 98.8% similar to chimps but 99.6% similar to Ponderosa Pine trees our conclusions would be different.Quibbling? Before 2025 studies, Dr. Tour correctly states the biologist's claimed similarity:
So Dr. Tour was correct. Therefore, claiming he lost credibility as a scientist is incorrect, right?Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms.
No, go back and re-read my first post on that.So Dr. Tour was correct. Therefore, claiming he lost credibility as a scientist is incorrect, right?
Are you now asserting that shared DNA's is no longer sufficient evidence for a common ancestor? If so, is your claim that because Dr. Tour is only partially correct in his claim, that he is, therefore, incredible?No, go back and re-read my first post on that.
Therefore, you abandon the common ancestor claim that humans evolved from any other kind of living creature that lacks specific genetic sequences in common? Or at least admit the evidence for that claim is on the lowest confidence level possible for scientific claims, ie., consensus among biased "experts"?... the specific types of genetic sequences we share ...
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?