Funniness

[lightencandle]

The Patristic teaching of creation and the modern philosophy of evolution are incompatible and uncomplementary. Attempts to consumate such a marriage are futile

Evolution and creation are not incompatable. Perhaps you never payed attention in elementary biology class, but evolution does not explain how life was formed, how the world was "created", or anything else that Christians hold to be the work of God.

 

[lightencandle]

why should a Christian be required to believe in evolution thus making it a faith.

I don't think anyone cares whether you believe in evolution or not, no one is "requiring" you to believe anything.

If the evolutionary process is so obviously prevalent in nature then why is it constantly defended , redefined and its terms of reference narrowing.It appears that any well meaning critic of evolutionary theory must be refuted at any cost

The pot calling the kettle black?
Might I bring to your attention the Creationists who spread more propaganda about their so-called "scientific facts", when most of them have never even seen a microscope. If someone is going to challange something, people are probably going to respond. The vast majority of opposers of the evolutionary theory are Christians, and they are making their voices heard. They are also making the entire religion look foolish.

 

[lightencandle]

But the Bible does disprove man's theory of evolution. Anything that God is not a part of, is doomed to failure. Just as man's evolutionary theory has failed again and again.

But the Bible doesn't disprove man's theory of evolution!
Who can say God is not a part of evolution? God is behind all science, no? Evolution is in fact, God's own design. And evolutionary theory has not failed "again and again". What are you talking about?

 

[lightencandle]

It is not heretical to put evolutionary thinking under the microscope, what we are seeking is truth above all else,evolutionists seem unconcerned with the voluminous evidentiary problems that have been identified and argue that the theory has to be true regardless as described by the following quote
"It is not that the methods of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the world, but on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door."

I agree, as long as they have an actual reason to ask questions. It seems many Creationists are so against it because they think their religion is being threatened, which of course, it's not. Certainly there are scientists who will not be openminded and see problems with their theories, but many are, even if we don't see it. Science is a process, after all. And there are not "the voluminous evidentiary problems that have been identified".

 

[lightencandle]

My evidence for the Bible is that I am here having this conversation with you. If God were not life, health and healing, then I would not be here and alive to have this conversation.

Even if I agree with you about the Bible,

 

[cody]

but you agree that knowledge is a gift from God? with that knowledge the tower of babel was built and God had to step in. they got too wise for their own good. I can see that happening again through science and trying to know how things came about...trying to recreate creation...

actually, the men who built the tower of babel were NOT too smart for there own good...they were too IGNORANT for there own good. there is a difference between wisdom and ignorance...and testing God like the men who built the tower of babel was not wise.
testing God almighty is ignorance, and that's what they did when they tried to reach the heavens with stone.

 

[cody]

I don't think anyone cares whether you believe in evolution or not, no one is "requiring" you to believe anything.



The pot calling the kettle black?
Might I bring to your attention the Creationists who spread more propaganda about their so-called "scientific facts", when most of them have never even seen a microscope. If someone is going to challange something, people are probably going to respond. The vast majority of opposers of the evolutionary theory are Christians, and they are making their voices heard. They are also making the entire religion look foolish.

sam, youre right. christians should investigate before they use "proof texts" of scientific facts to disprove the theory of evolution. but there are many learned christian men who HAVE studied evolution and still have valid arguments against it. not all christians are ignorant.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but there are many learned christian men who HAVE studied evolution and still have valid arguments against it.


i sure wish that they would come here and help us understand the arguments against the ToE. perhaps you could point to their books?

 

[cody]

Sir, evolutionary "philosophy" is too complex to fit inside the brains of most respected biologists. The only connecting "evidence" that proves this single branch of evolutionary biology is unreliable and horrably misused. I suggest that you stop, and drop all of your previous conceptions about evolution, because they are doing nothing for you. There is an article, not as well written as others, on Twisted Press that attempts explain this. You might want to do a google search for Twisted Press, hosted by Wordpress.




Knowledge about God can only be revealed in the Bible?Is that what you're saying? If you are, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. God cannot be contained in that little Book, however I or anyone else respects it as an authority on the nature of God. The best knowledge of God we can get is directly from God himself.

i agree with sam. let's start with the fact that the bible is the inspired word of God. ok, than we would have to believe what the bible says. now, nowwhere in the pages of God's written word does is it say that the only revelation of him is in the bible. christianity is not a BOOK RELIGION. God is revealed completely in JESUS!!! doesnt the bible say that HE is the Word of God? and it also says that all creation declares the glory of God. science is part of God's creation...rather, what is used to explain God's creation...but it did have a beggining.
and science does indeed declare the glory of God. God can and does reveal himself in other ways than the bible...but we must always keep in mind that God cannot reveal something that contradicts what has already been revealed by him...because that would be lame...and then God wouldnt be God.

 

[cody]

How? Got an example?

yes...i think i might...
"....Isaiah 40:22:'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...' The word for circle in this passage is the Hebrew word KHOOG,wich, when in its masculine form as it is here means 'a circle, a sphere'.(The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5)
um, it's my belief that during the time the book of isaiah was written, it was assumed that the world was flat. i think, that it wasnt known that the world was a sphere until later on in history...i hope this is enough!!!
God bess you!!! with love, cody

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

yes...i think i might...
"....Isaiah 40:22:'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...' The word for circle in this passage is the Hebrew word KHOOG,wich, when in its masculine form as it is here means 'a circle, a sphere'.(The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5)
um, it's my belief that during the time the book of isaiah was written, it was assumed that the world was flat. i think, that it wasnt known that the world was a sphere until later on in history...i hope this is enough!!!

Can you stop with the exclamation points and the blessing? It's annoying.

I can't believe somebody is pulling "circle of the earth" out again.

It is certainly not enough. There is a great deal of dispute on this, and many hebrew lexicons do not include "sphere" in the definition. There have been discussions on this board about this.

In fact, there is apparently a separate hebrew word that means "sphere". If that is what the author meant, why did he not use that word?

The most common definition found on the internet says "circle", "compass" "circuit", and all of the major translations say circle. The author could have said sphere. Why didn't he?

From Strong's Hebrew Bible Dictionary (see number 2329):

2329

chuwg
khoog

from 'chuwg' (2328); a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.

It is possible for something flat to be circular. Look in your pocket for a coin. So the author could just as easily have been talking about a circular flat earth.

Even if the hebrew word did mean circle or sphere, which one was it? You just assume he meant sphere because that's the meaning you need. Can we ask him for clarification?

 

[kingzjewel]

actually, the men who built the tower of babel were NOT too smart for there own good...they were too IGNORANT for there own good. there is a difference between wisdom and ignorance...and testing God like the men who built the tower of babel was not wise.
testing God almighty is ignorance, and that's what they did when they tried to reach the heavens with stone.

smarts does not equal wisdom...
stop nitpicking

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Statements Consistent With Paleontology

* Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books.

Since this would imply that dinosaurs lived during the same time as man, does this actually agree with current science?

 

[Lignoba]

Theories forever change. The Word of God does not.

Look at this website and tell me again what never changes...
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

 

[Mandrake]

Never thought I'd see an agnostic appeal to a KJV-only site.....lol

 

[kingzjewel]

Look at this website and tell me again what never changes...
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

not my fault that people are changing His words...He isnt changing them though...and i dont want to see anything like "well arent these people directed by God" cuz it probably isnt necessarily the case. who knows the heart of man but God???

 

[lightencandle]

sam, youre right. christians should investigate before they use "proof texts" of scientific facts to disprove the theory of evolution. but there are many learned christian men who HAVE studied evolution and still have valid arguments against it. not all christians are ignorant.

I have no problem with people challenging evolution. I just have issues with people doing it for no reason, other than they think that they're being martyrs by doing so.

 

[lightencandle]

Since this would imply that dinosaurs lived during the same time as man, does this actually agree with current science?

But the bible doesn't say that dinosaures lived with man during the times the books were written.

 

[lightencandle]

but there are many learned christian men who HAVE studied evolution and still have valid arguments against it.


i sure wish that they would come here and help us understand the arguments against the ToE. perhaps you could point to their books?

Sure dear, I'd love to. Just as soon as you point to me a Creationist book that makes any sense to the scientific community. There are many theistic evolutionists, not all biologists are atheists, or agnostics. One othat comes to mind is [SIZE=-1]Asa Gray, and there are more. I just forget their names. Google it.[/SIZE]

 

[lightencandle]

Now imagine that occuring during EVERY translation before the printing press. The clergy changed words because a) there werent any english words for the words they were translating, b) the words were illegible in the original and c) they had to dumb it down so the illiterate population would understand.

The fact still remains, the version of God you know was writeen by man. How can you use scripture when it is an almost certainty that the Bible of today is not the same Bible that was originally written.

Speculation dearest.