Evolution vs God ?

[BarryDesborough]

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

Well, it's not God who teems or swarms with life. It is clear to anyone without an agenda that it is the waters and the earth that do whatever they need to do to bring forth all the different types of living creatures.

The creationists have hijacked scripture and everyone, fundy or not, has swallowed their lies about what it says.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, it's not God who teems or swarms with life. It is clear to anyone without an agenda that it is the waters and the earth that do whatever they need to do to bring forth all the different types of living creatures.

I would have to disagree here. The waters won't do anything without God's spoken command, and it is disputable whether the waters do anything at all. "'Let the waters bring forth'" seems to imply some sort of active part. "'Let the waters teem with'" does not; it is entirely passive.

 

[BarryDesborough]

I would have to disagree here. The waters won't do anything without God's spoken command, and it is disputable whether the waters do anything at all. "'Let the waters bring forth'" seems to imply some sort of active part. "'Let the waters teem with'" does not; it is entirely passive.

What does the bringing forth? These people worship the KJV, not God.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What does the bringing forth?

Yes, the waters bring forth, at the command of God. Which means both options (a) and (c).

But what matters is what the Hebrew says, not some English translation. And I am more inclined towards translations that have "Let the waters teem with". And that is exclusively option (a).

 

[Heissonear]

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.

Wimp answer to origin of life for a Naturalist. Your very foundation of primordial soup is lacking evidence. You need someone to point this out?

 

[Heissonear]

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?"

You look at the words of the Book but lack hearing His voice. Not a good combination. Also, the dynamics of the Spiritual World around us you are unaware of yet you interpret Scriptures for God, dividing His Word?

 

[Heissonear]

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.

It is answers like this that Naturalists show their measurable faith and lack of evidence. This subject is the very foundation of life beginning on earth - and you give us this reply?

 

[Heissonear]

Yes, the waters bring forth, at the command of God. Which means both options (a) and (c).

But what matters is what the Hebrew says, not some English translation. And I am more inclined towards translations that have "Let the waters teem with". And that is exclusively option (a).

If you really knew what the Scriptures "reflect" you would be a God fearing follower after reading Genesis 1:1. Rather, you are braining it, and twisting it unaware. A common problem for those who do not seek the answer from the Source. They become the source; or attempt to before many.

 

[twinc]

Well, it's not God who teems or swarms with life. It is clear to anyone without an agenda that it is the waters and the earth that do whatever they need to do to bring forth all the different types of living creatures.

The creationists have hijacked scripture and everyone, fundy or not, has swallowed their lies about what it says.

the waters and the earth it seems did not bring forth anything before God said so,why not and where was it all evolving and complete when it was brought forth - what a load of hogwash and rubbish some dare to call science without batting an eyelid - twinc

 

[lasthero]

Evolution does not propose that any 'incomplete' animal ever appeared.

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution does not propose that any 'incomplete' animal ever appeared.

Naturalist backtracking again to hold the theory intact. "Evolution does not propose" .......

The gaps in evolution are broadening, pushing followers into more and more need for faith. Are you finally starting to see it? The evidence based crowd are learning the limitations of Naturalism.

 

[lasthero]

Backtracking? From what? Evolution never proposed that an 'incomplete' animal should exist. How can I backtrack from a position I never held?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If you really knew what the Scriptures "reflect" you would be a God fearing follower after reading Genesis 1:1. Rather, you are braining it, and twisting it unaware. A common problem for those who do not seek the answer from the Source. They become the source; or attempt to before many.

You Heissonear talk about others becoming the source? You? YOU?

You really should hear yourself talk from time to time. I mean, this post that you just now made is totally worthless, for example. Other times you are obsessing about "naturalists", or you are talking about yourself and how ... ohhhhh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wimp answer to origin of life for a Naturalist. Your very foundation of primordial soup is lacking evidence. You need someone to point this out?

It wasn't a wimp answer. It was an honest answer.

Something that creationists cannot appreciate.

And the study of abiogenesis is a very promising field. Where are you going to move the goal posts to when they succeed. And given sciences track record there is little doubt that they will succeed.

Remember Behe's "irreducible complexity"? All of his claims have been debunked.

You are worshiping the Bible, not the word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naturalist backtracking again to hold the theory intact. "Evolution does not propose" .......

The gaps in evolution are broadening, pushing followers into more and more need for faith. Are you finally starting to see it? The evidence based crowd are learning the limitations of Naturalism.

Pull the other one, its got bells on.

You do know that the missing link is no longer missing, don't you? In fact we have found several.

Your God of the Gaps is shrinking away to nothing as the gaps get tinier and tinier.

 

[BarryDesborough]

You look at the words of the Book but lack hearing His voice. Not a good combination. Also, the dynamics of the Spiritual World around us you are unaware of yet you interpret Scriptures for God, dividing His Word?

How much 'interpretation' does' "the waters brought forth" require? He is going to ask you why you interpret it in such a way that it no longer makes sense.

 

[BarryDesborough]

the waters and the earth it seems did not bring forth anything before God said so,why not and where was it all evolving and complete when it was brought forth - what a load of hogwash and rubbish some dare to call science without batting an eyelid - twinc

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:" and it was so.

God let the earth bring forth. The bringing forth was done by the earth, according to God's will. God let it. He did not prevent it. Exactly how the earth brought forth the different types of living thing is not said. "It was so", is all the writer knows.

Anyhow, this is all a bit beside the point. We know how to interpret the Bible, based on the real facts of this physical world. There is no way to interpret 200,000 ERVs in common locations in chimps and humans, except as slam-dunk evidence for common ancestry. Do yourself a favour and learn about them. ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Introduction

A powerful source of evidence that modern species diverged from ancestral species via descent with modification is that of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERV evidence consists of three independent layers that corroborate one another. As will be further discussed, the three layers of ERV evidence are: 1) the sharing of ERVs in identical loci among organisms of varying degrees of taxonomic separation, and the nested hierarchies that these shared ERVs are arranged in; 2) the examination of shared mutagenic discrepancies between shared ERVs, so as to infer relative sequence of insertion; and 3) the nested hierarchies of shared mutations among given ERVs in identical loci. But before this evidence can be examined, one must have a firm understanding of retroviruses and how they infect cells.

 

[Heissonear]

You Heissonear talk about others becoming the source? You? YOU?

You really should hear yourself talk from time to time. I mean, this post that you just now made is totally worthless, for example. Other times you are obsessing about "naturalists", or you are talking about yourself and how ... ohhhhh.

Clear your stuffy ears: the Source is God, the Creator. He does speak, you know.

Now, if I point for others to get their information from Him (the Creator) why do you compare me to Him? He would be a little bit older, smarter, stronger, ....

Are you just letting your frustration out? No, not when you said "totally worthless".

Clear those ears, my friend. God still speaks through His Word and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Heissonear]

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:" and it was so.

God let the earth bring forth. The bringing forth was done by the earth, according to God's will. God let it. He did not prevent it. Exactly how the earth brought forth the different types of living thing is not said. "It was so", is all the writer knows.

Anyhow, this is all a bit beside the point. We know how to interpret the Bible, based on the real facts of this physical world. There is no way to interpret 200,000 ERVs in common locations in chimps and humans, except as slam-dunk evidence for common ancestry. Do yourself a favour and learn about them. ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Sorry, Barry, you and many others have jumped the gun.

There can be no endogenous retroviruses in existence to discuss If the primordial soup never produced what many in their "leep of faith" say was produced - RNA & DNA. Checkmate - on your "evidence only" you are supposively based on.

 

[lasthero]

But they do exist. So...