Evolution vs God ?

[TLK Valentine]

It was your interpretation of Genesis the reply was about. Will it stand when you finally meet Him?

Ah yes, nice to see that threats, not facts, still make up the bulk of creationist arguments while I've been gone.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have always wondered about people with odd Bible interpretations and what they would do when they meet up with a God with a different interpretation.

OTOH, it is a highly hypothetical problem.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah yes, nice to see that threats, not facts, still make up the bulk of creationist arguments while I've been gone.

When in doubt, use empty threats, designed for mythical times.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You really don't have an answer for seeing Him, since so far He does not exist to you.

Just as you have no answer for seeing Zeus or Krishna or the jolly green giant. You just wait till Allah gets hold of you, I wouldn't like to be in your shoes then!

The other is where

The other? The other what?

you have placed your (supposedly non-existent) faith: a) condtions required for the primordial soup; b) odds for the biochemical process of RNA & DNA production.

Have I? Perhaps I have. it seems the only reasonable option. I've heard the idea a few times before that life began on another planet or in outer space and then came to Earth, but it doesn't really work for me. I may be wrong, I don't know, I haven't looked at the latest evidence, but it seems less likely to me than life on Earth beginning on Earth.

 

[GodsGirlToday61]

I saw this thread title and thought 'why evolution vs. God'? (I don't think that way.)

I think of 'evolution' as a part of whatever God creates, and however I understand it--or don't--as my limited viewpoint of how God makes and holds in existence, well, everything. I mean, how could I understand most about any thing, let along, everything about any one theory: Rhetorical, yup.

I am finite; God is Infinite; evolution is a theory; creationism is, what, another 'ism'?

I don't go 'there', so off-track, but again, the title struck me, as that kind of 'Something apart of, as opposed to apart from, as odd. (Shrugs, smiles, goes off to read from Frank Sheed's Theology for Beginners, happy that I know even one other person who doesn't see evolution as absolutely out of God's Domain.)

~ Carolyn

 

[Heissonear]

When in doubt, use empty threats, designed for mythical times.

Confidence in error. He is in our midst and you do not acknowledge Him. Tilt the perspective your way? Error.

 

[Heissonear]

Have I? Perhaps I have. it seems the only reasonable option. I've heard the idea a few times before that life began on another planet or in outer space and then came to Earth, but it doesn't really work for me. I may be wrong, I don't know, I haven't looked at the latest evidence, but it seems less likely to me than life on Earth beginning on Earth.

The primordial soup is your very foundation to evolution. Where is the evidence? The faith of Naturalists is evidently seen, and their dilemma of no other place to put their faith. You are avoiding your foundation.

 

[Heissonear]

I have always wondered about people with odd Bible interpretations and what they would do when they meet up with a God with a different interpretation.

OTOH, it is a highly hypothetical problem.

Why it exist is beyond Naturalists. To Naturalists it is confusion, not much to learn. In the Spiritual World the dynamics are currently beyond you.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It was your interpretation of Genesis the reply was about. Will it stand when you finally meet Him?

Read Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The primordial soup is your very foundation to evolution. Where is the evidence? The faith of Naturalists is evidently seen, and their dilemma of no other place to put their faith. You are avoiding your foundation.

No, the primordial soup is the basis of abiogenesis. Abiognesis is still in the hypothetical stage. Evolution would work whether the first life was from abiogenesis, created by God, or planted by E.T. on a drive by.

The evidence for abiogenesis is all chemical in nature, and as I said the answer is not clear yet. It is the most likely answer, scientists are not sure how it may have happened yet. It is still a very active area of research.

 

[driewerf]

Interpreting and applying the Bible is not a Naturalist strength. It is their playtime.

Literal is literal, no interpretation needed.

 

[driewerf]

Ya ... I'm a little ahead of you on that:

Congratulations.

Now, each time a woman gives birth to a boy, she is not reproducing after her kind.
It is possible to give birth to another kind and macro-evolution is proven.

checkmate, creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Congratulations.

Now, each time a woman gives birth to a boy, she is not reproducing after her kind.
It is possible to give birth to another kind and macro-evolution is proven.

checkmate, creationists.

Wrong.

The two become one.

 

[driewerf]

Wrong.

The two become one.

wrong. They are two different kinds. Do you know god's creation better than god himself? If he wrote it down in Lev 18:22, when that's the way it is.

THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT

 

[BarryDesborough]

It was your interpretation of Genesis the reply was about. Will it stand when you finally meet Him?

I think you should ask yourself that question. How will you answer when he says, "I put it down in black and white for you. The waters and the earth brought forth life. Why did you distort my words so?"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have always wondered about people with odd Bible interpretations and what they would do when they meet up with a God with a different interpretation.

OTOH, it is a highly hypothetical problem.

Why it exist is beyond Naturalists. To Naturalists it is confusion, not much to learn. In the Spiritual World the dynamics are currently beyond you.

You certainly seem to be responding to a post that only exists in your own special spiritual world. What on earth does your post have to do with mine?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think you should ask yourself that question. How will you answer when he says, "I put it down in black and white for you. The waters and the earth brought forth life. Why did you distort my words so?"

The answer of course is, that there is a lot of room in interpreting the first creation account in the Bible with respects to being saved or not. Means, a Gap theorist won't go to hell just because of an odd (read: wrong) interpretation of Genesis 1:2; AV won't go to hell for disregarding Hebrew in favor of English; etc pp.

And yet, Heissonear acts as if a correct interpretation of a given verse in Genesis 1 DID matter. It is pure sophistry.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Genesis 1.

Those thingamajigs God created were told to multiply after their own kind.

Lying about what scripture says will get you into trouble.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The answer of course is, that there is a lot of room in interpreting the first creation account in the Bible with respects to being saved or not. Means, a Gap theorist won't go to hell just because of an odd (read: wrong) interpretation of Genesis 1:2; AV won't go to hell for disregarding Hebrew in favor of English; etc pp.

And yet, Heissonear acts as if a correct interpretation of a given verse in Genesis 1 DID matter. It is pure sophistry.

Even so, his interpretation is incorrect.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

What brought fourth every living creature?

a) God?

b) Custard?

c) The waters?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Even so, his interpretation is incorrect.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

What brought fourth every living creature?

a) God?

b) Custard?

c) The waters?

Actually that seems to be a KJV (and incidentally a NRSV thing), what with the waters bringing forth stuff. Other translation like to use "Let the waters teem with" and "swarm" (YMMV). Anyway, the word in question is Strong's number H8317, sharats:
Strong's Number 8317 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon :: H8317