Evolution is STUPID

[Keachian]

Conway's Game of Life isn't much of anything. It's just turn on and off a butch of pixels.
If a pixel to the left which is on for 100ms then turn off at the same time the pixel to the right turn on for 100ms then turn off and the next pixel on the right turn on, etc,etc your brain will connect the pixels as one pixel like a ball moving to the right. Yet in reality a single pixel isn't moving to the right but separate pixels turn off and on. So is this program nothing but turning pixels off and on and has absolutely nothing to do with life... a lot like video games.

We're not talking about life, we're talking about the rise of meaningful information from random noise. As such Conway's game of life satisfies this, I also find it interesting that you insist that the selfreplicating colonies that can arise are not analogous to life.

 

[berachah]

*sigh* seriously? You want a list of all the observed, information adding mutations that have been recorded?
CB102: Mutations adding information

(the same anti-evolution arguments over and over... the same as next week and the week after that. Forgot why I don't get involved in these discussions anymore)

Instead of the condescending sigh (I mean what is that supposed to show; that your self supposed superior intellect is burdened with the discussion?) Rather not get involved in the discussion if thats the case and perhaps read some of the studies you refer to in your link.... have you actually read any of the studies in your link???I read two and gave up because the conclusion you suggest from them are far from what the link suggests... actually they affirmed my belief somewhat, so thank you..

 

[berachah]

I don't.

I get that you might interpret Genesis 1 as a six day creation, but that still doesn't that tell you no animals died before the fall.

..or that any existed, nevermind died before Genesis 1:1 How did any animal survive before there was light, land, food, etc?

My advice is get rid of all the theories, commentaries and worldly doctrines and re-read Genesis 1&2, prayerfully. In extreme cases of I generally advocate fasting and prayer and this may be worth considering...

If that is unpalatable move to Genesis 6 - 9. Unless of course there is hidden interpretation in that as well.

 

[Keachian]

..or that any existed, nevermind died before Genesis 1:1 How did any animal survive before there was light, land, food, etc?

How was there light before the sun, how does the universe hold together? God through his providential grace does these things.

My advice is get rid of all the theories, commentaries and worldly doctrines and re-read Genesis 1&2, prayerfully. In extreme cases of I generally advocate fasting and prayer and this may be worth considering...

If that is unpalatable move to Genesis 6 - 9. Unless of course that also has hidden interpretation about that as well.

You complain about us being condescending, it's as if you're the only one who has prayed over the passages in question.

 

[berachah]

And you say there are no examples of intermediate forms between these "kinds", do you?

Pray tell, where does "evolution", say any such thing?

Hitler also believed that cruelty to animals was bad, and prosecuted people accordingly. Does this mean that being nice to animals is a "demonic doctrine"?

I suggest you find Darwin's masterpiece and read the whole title of the book for enlightenment.

 

[Keachian]

I suggest you find Darwin's masterpiece and read the whole title of the book for enlightenment.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Still with a condescending tone.

You must also forgive me for pointing out that "races" has until recently been a common synonym for species eg the human race

 

[berachah]

How was there light before the sun, how does the universe hold together? God through his providential grace does these things.

You complain about us being condescending, it's as if you're the only one who has prayed over the passages in question.

The Word is the Light...the manifestation of God the Father.

Well have you?
Have you seriously prayed and fasted over scriptures you do not have understanding of? I am honestly interested to know. How long did you labour before God gave you the revelation of evolution? And where has He given you confirmation of this doctrine in the word?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I suggest you find Darwin's masterpiece and read the whole title of the book for enlightenment.

Huh?

What Progmonk said.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

 

[Assyrian]

..or that any existed, nevermind died before Genesis 1:1 How did any animal survive before there was light, land, food, etc?

We are talking animals about dying before the fall, not before Genesis 1:1. The issue is whether they were created mortal and would have died whether Adam sinned or not, or whether they were created immortal and only became subject to death after Adam sinned. Even if you believe in a six day creation you don't know how long after it was that Adam and Eve sinned. Plenty of time for an elephant to step on a snail or a sloth to fall out of a tree.

My advice is get rid of all the theories, commentaries and worldly doctrines and re-read Genesis 1&2, prayerfully. In extreme cases of I generally advocate fasting and prayer and this may be worth considering...

I have read them. What is interesting is the Genesis 1 never says the world was created in six days or even that the days are supposed to be consecutive. Genesis 2 is really interesting if you look at what the text actually says. It describes the creation in a completely different order to Genesis 1. Adam was created when there were no plants. God created animals and birds after he created Adam. Completely different to Genesis 1. Creationist go to great lengths trying to make the order of creation in the two chapters fit each other instead of hearing what the texts actually say and realising that if they describe the creation different orders, then trying to read these chapters as a timetable of creation is missing the point.

If that is unpalatable move to Genesis 6 - 9. Unless of course there is hidden interpretation in that as well.

Just to let you know, I think the Hebrew describes a local flood, but this thread is about evolution so unless there is a points you want to make about evolution from Gen 6-9, I would suggest you start a new thread on the topic.

 

[berachah]

We are talking animals about dying before the fall, not before Genesis 1:1. The issue is whether they were created mortal and would have died whether Adam sinned or not, or whether they were created immortal and only became subject to death after Adam sinned. Even if you believe in a six day creation you don't know how long after it was that Adam and Eve sinned. Plenty of time for an elephant to step on a snail or a sloth to fall out of a tree.

Its difficult for for humans in our sinful nature to perceive a realm where there is no death nor suffering, but that is the good world that God originally created. When God was in total authority over a perfect world would death (which the Bible describes as a spirit) have any authority? Or would God not decalre the boundaries of all that is in existence? Do you believe in the next world there will still be death and suffering? That animals will stilll die?

I have read them. What is interesting is the Genesis 1 never says the world was created in six days or even that the days are supposed to be consecutive. Genesis 2 is really interesting if you look at what the text actually says. It describes the creation in a completely different order to Genesis 1. Adam was created when there were no plants. God created animals and birds after he created Adam. Completely different to Genesis 1. Creationist go to great lengths trying to make the order of creation in the two chapters fit each other instead of hearing what the texts actually say and realising that if they describe the creation different orders, then trying to read these chapters as a timetable of creation is missing the point.

In the beginning God began to create for 6 days. On the 7th day he rested. If there were gaps, why did he not rest after each day?
"And the evening and the morning were the 1st day and night,"is also quite specific.
There is a difference between bringing the concept of vegetation into existence and planting a specific garden. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed," 2:8 does not suggest that man was created before the garden of Eden.

 

[Assyrian]

Its difficult for for humans in our sinful nature to perceive a realm where there is no death nor suffering, but that is the good world that God originally created. When God was in total authority over a perfect world would death (which the Bible describes as a spirit) have any authority? Or would God not decalre the boundaries of all that is in existence?

You start off saying how difficult it is to understand such a world, then you deciding what it must have been like and making up reasons why. If the bible doesn't say there was no animal death before the fall, what basis have you other than you own assumptions about what you think God must have done? And if the world of Genesis 1 is so difficult to comprehend, isn't it possible your literalist reading of the text is simply mistaken?

Do you believe in the next world there will still be death and suffering? That animals will stilll die?

The difference here is the bible tells us there will be no more death.

In the beginning God began to create for 6 days. On the 7th day he rested. If there were gaps, why did he not rest after each day?

Why should he? God doesn't get tired.

"And the evening and the morning were the 1st day and night,"is also quite specific.

Actually the Hebrew says:
And there was evening and there was morning one day.
Not very specific at all.

There is a difference between bringing the concept of vegetation into existence and planting a specific garden. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed," 2:8 does not suggest that man was created before the garden of Eden.

The problem isn't planting a garden but placing Adam's creation When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up Gen 2:5.

 

[jlmagee]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="William Lane Craig describes EVOLUTION from a christian standpoint - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He says it well.

 

[Keachian]

The Word is the Light...the manifestation of God the Father.

So you agree with me that God is in charge.

Well have you?

Yes, I pray every time I sit down to look at God's word.

Have you seriously prayed and fasted over scriptures you do not have understanding of? I am honestly interested to know

Last one I prayed over in that manner was Isaiah 45:7

How long did you labour before God gave you the revelation of evolution?

It's not about whether I accept or reject evolution, but about whether I accept or reject God's sovereignty over creation, personally I'm ambivalent towards the theory.

And where has He given you confirmation of this doctrine in the word?

Let's see we can go with Gen 1-2, Isa 45, Col 1:16, Ex 3-4, practically any verse that talks about God's supremacy such as the shema and whole host of others, however I'm about to leave for church so can't actually go through the entire Bible to get all references to God's sovereignty.

 

[berachah]

You start off saying how difficult it is to understand such a world, then you deciding what it must have been like and making up reasons why. If the bible doesn't say there was no animal death before the fall, what basis have you other than you own assumptions about what you think God must have done? And if the world of Genesis 1 is so difficult to comprehend, isn't it possible your literalist reading of the text is simply mistaken?

I was being sympathetic to the difficulty you appear to be having with a pre-sin era. On my side it is a lot clearer how things were and what they will be restored to at the end time. The Bible says death came through sin, that the world is under the curse of the sin of mankind and awaits the manifestation of the sons of God. Your doctrine is the one with presumption and assumption. But Genesis is not the only reference to the 7 day creation doctrine. In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 the message is repeated and lest you cannot accept any OT scripture literally, then it is repeated in Hebrews 4:4. But perhaps you also have a Greek interpretation that can explain that verse better..

The difference here is the bible tells us there will be no more death.

Well the NT says death came through man, and when man gets it right death will be defeated. Maybe God forget about the animals when He inspired those words.

Why should he? God doesn't get tired.

Apparently after 7 days of work, He does.

Actually the Hebrew says:
And there was evening and there was morning one day.
Not very specific at all.

The problem isn't planting a garden but placing Adam's creation When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up Gen 2:5.

So, are you reading literally or not...?

 

[Keachian]

I was being sympathetic to the difficulty you appear to be having with a pre-sin era. On my side it is a lot clearer how things were and what they will be restored to at the end time. The Bible says death came through sin, that the world is under the curse of the sin of mankind and awaits the manifestation of the sons of God. Your doctrine is the one with presumption and assumption. But Genesis is not the only reference to the 7 day creation doctrine. In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 the message is repeated and lest you cannot accept any OT scripture literally, then it is repeated in Hebrews 4:4. But perhaps you also have a Greek interpretation that can explain that verse better..

It is quite clear what living in the time of Emmanuel will be like, the eschatological passages are more descriptive of that time than Gen 1. In terms of the Hebrews verse, context is everything, the author is pointing to Christ, not to creation, his focus is on Christ and the Emmanuel period to come.

Well the NT says death came through man, and when man gets it right death will be defeated. Maybe God forget about the animals when He inspired those words.

Does Jesus' act as the second man have repercussions backwards and forwards in time? Yes, after all he is the one holy and pleasing sacrifice, he is the one hoped for by the prophets as they got prophecy, he is the one hoped for by Israel.

Apparently after 7 days of work, He does.

You mean 6...

So, are you reading literally or not...?

I'd prefer to read it as the original audience would have understood it, I think the Christology that comes from the passage is beautiful.

 

[berachah]

So you agree with me that God is in charge.

Yes.... God gave man authority over the world and man gave authority to the devil

 

[Keachian]

Yes.... God gave man authority over the world and man gave authority to the devil

And then Christ took it back on the Cross

 

[Elijahrock]

Praise God! The Evolutionists won't win. "Science" is so silly. So many people spending so many thousands of hours and for what. To cure infectious diseases? To develop the technology that we're using to type? They couldn't possibly know anything about the history of the earth.

 

[Assyrian]

I was being sympathetic to the difficulty you appear to be having with a pre-sin era. On my side it is a lot clearer how things were and what they will be restored to at the end time.

Perhaps it is the clarity of the understanding you think you have that should make you think again, Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For one thing you seem to be assuming that God's plan is to restore the earth to what it was in Genesis, the bible never says that, in fact Paul tells us in 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him" How could Paul say no eye has seen this, if God's plan is to restore Eden that Adam and Eve saw?

The Bible says death came through sin, that the world is under the curse of the sin of mankind and awaits the manifestation of the sons of God. Your doctrine is the one with presumption and assumption.

You seem to be referring to Romans 8 which makes no reference to the fall and doesn't say the world is under the curse of sin.

But Genesis is not the only reference to the 7 day creation doctrine. In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 the message is repeated and lest you cannot accept any OT scripture literally, then it is repeated in Hebrews 4:4. But perhaps you also have a Greek interpretation that can explain that verse better..

No I simply read the next couple of verses where the writer describes this rest as one we are called to enter into today.

Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience...
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Was God's rest on the seventh day over in 24 hours, or is the writer of Hebrews interpreting Gen 2:2 as a picture the rest we have in God through the gospel, an ongoing rest we can still enter today?

With the Exodus references, it isn't enough to take the verses in isolation and try to read them literally, you need to look at what Moses was doing with the references. Was he teaching the history of the earth and six day creationism, or was he using the reference to teach Sabbath observance? If you take a passage that is teaching Sabbath observance and use it to teach creationism, you are actually taking the verse out of context.

I am glad you referred to Exodus 31:17 as well, It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. If you want to take that literally, you not only have the Almighty God tired after a week's hard work creating, you have the unchangeable God refreshed after a day's rest.

Well the NT says death came through man, and when man gets it right death will be defeated. Maybe God forget about the animals when He inspired those words.

Apparently after 7 days of work, He does.

Shouldn't our understanding God as the Creator show us how amazingly and astoundingly great God is, instead of leaving you with a God who gets tired after a week's work and forgets to mention animal in Romans 5 (yes I realise you were just being sarcastic ). Death is an enemy to be defeated now, as Paul says the sting of death is sin. It's the problem of confusing what the bible says about the present and the future with what happened in the past. Just because death is now an enemy through man's sin, it doesn't mean death only existed since sin gave it its sting. If there was death before the fall it didn't have a sting and would have been a part of God's good creation rather than an enemy.

It isn't just that Roman 5:12 only talks of death spreading to humans and forgot to mention animals, the way it says sin spread couldn't apply to animals. Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned. Animals do not sin, they can't sin. Paul is describing the reason death through the world after the fall and the reason he give is one that cannot affect animals. Don't forget that the bible uses the same term death, to refer to physical death or spiritual death, often it is only context that tells us which one it is talking about. In Romans 5:12 the death is one that is a result of sin and only affect humans not animals. Sounds to me like Paul was talking about spiritual death here.

So, are you reading literally or not...?

I am looking at the plain meaning of the text, which is what you need to understand before deciding if the passage is literal or figurative. In Gen 1:5 there was evening and there was morning one day, the plain meaning of the text tells me that what you think is the literal interpretation - this was the first day - isn't what the text is saying even if you take it literally. With Genesis 2 the plain meaning of the text, Adam's creation being described as happening before there were plants, tells me we cannot take both Genesis 1 which describe plants created before man and Genesis 2 as literal history. The plain meaning of the texts contradict each other. Now either God forgot the order he created the world in, and forgot what he said in Genesis 1, (like, as you suggest, he forgot to mention animals in Romans 5), or these texts were never meant to be read as literal history.