Gods origin;

[ethos]

Excuse me if I speak quite frankly, but; if evolutionists have their way, we might be hearing sooner rather than later that God started his existence as an amoeba. This is what you could call, taking evolution to it's final analysis.

 

[notto]

Actually, that is what you could call a strawman.

 

[SBG]

Many evolutionists don't believe there is God. God will never fit into science because He is not testable, but many scientists have dismissed the idea of there being a God and have pushed for there being a non-created, ever existing matter(chemical) that eventually formed this universe through a cosmic explosion.

There cannot be an eternal God, but there can be an eternal matter. That is what you call waring against God.

And to make sure I am clear to all those who read this, I speaking about those scientists who are atheists.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Excuse me if I speak quite frankly, but; if evolutionists have their way, we might be hearing sooner rather than later that God started his existence as an amoeba. This is what you could call, taking evolution to it's final analysis.

No, you won't.

Atheists will tend to contend that God is a construct of the human brain, and only secondarily therefore a product of biological evolution. Unquestionably, however, ideas about God change and evolve. But this is not biological evolution. Some may even see evolution as an overarching philosophy, but that's not the scientific theory of evolution.

Those who believe in God will generally see evolution as a tool in God's hands, never the other way round.

A few kooks will propose some kind of objectively real God that nevertheless is not eternal but developed or even "evolved" in some non-biological way.

But no-one is going to propose that an objective spiritual being, or a mental concept, evolved from an amoeba. It's worth mentioning, by the way, that amoebae are modern organisms and it isn't proposed that any other organism evolved from an amoeba. But that's by the by.

 

[tryptophan]

Excuse me if I speak quite frankly, but; if evolutionists have their way, we might be hearing sooner rather than later that God started his existence as an amoeba. This is what you could call, taking evolution to it's final analysis.

I highly doubt it.

 

[ethos]

No, you won't.

Atheists will tend to contend that God is a construct of the human brain, and only secondarily therefore a product of biological evolution. Unquestionably, however, ideas about God change and evolve. But this is not biological evolution. Some may even see evolution as an overarching philosophy, but that's not the scientific theory of evolution.

Those who believe in God will generally see evolution as a tool in God's hands, never the other way round.

A few kooks will propose some kind of objectively real God that nevertheless is not eternal but developed or even "evolved" in some non-biological way.

But no-one is going to propose that an objective spiritual being, or a mental concept, evolved from an amoeba. It's worth mentioning, by the way, that amoebae are modern organisms and it isn't proposed that any other organism evolved from an amoeba. But that's by the by.

The only tool God needed when he spoke the universe into existence was his voice!! I really don't believe that God requires a need for the use of any external implement "tool" as you put it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Which is why He didn't use Cyrus as a tool to get the Jews back out of exile... oh, bugger - He did.

Guess God does use tools.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ethos, do us a favor by learning what evolution actually says and doesn't says before assuming.

 

[ethos]

Ethos, do us a favor by learning what evolution actually says and doesn't says before assuming.

I'm very much more concerned about what God actually says and doesn't say. And I believe that it is the evolutionists that are assuming too many things that are in disagreement with scripture. So do yourself a favor and read your bible, and ask the Lord to reveal his word for your life thru the Holy Spirit.

 

[PaladinValer]

I've read the Holy Bible, thank you. I see nothing where the theory of evolution interfers with its message of faith, doctrine, and knowledge of the fullness of salvation.

Your original post on this thread however suggests that you assume what evolution is, despite the fact that your assumption missing the mark by the distance between the Earth and the moon.

 

[ethos]

I've read the Holy Bible, thank you. I see nothing where the theory of evolution interfers with its message of faith, doctrine, and knowledge of the fullness of salvation.

Your original post on this thread however suggests that you assume what evolution is, despite the fact that your assumption missing the mark by the distance between the Earth and the moon.

Very well PaladinValer; then I'll ask a few questions, maybe you can straighten me out. Do you believe that the actual man Adam lived on earth some several thousand years ago. And if you don't, as some at this forum testify, then why does scripture spend so much effort defining the lineage and time line between Seth and Christ. Scripture must have a purpose for investing so many pages and words to this exercise. If not to show the lineage and time line, then what was the purpose for this investment of time, paper and ink?

 

[PaladinValer]

That isn't the point, ethos. You are basing your arguments on a false premise. That is illogical.

Also, Fallacy of the Hard Question and what relevence does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

 

[ethos]

That isn't the point, ethos. You are basing your arguments on a false premise. That is illogical.

Also, Fallacy of the Hard Question and what relevence does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

The relevence for this question is, if Adam did exist as I believe, and the time line is accurate as I believe, then evolution is mistaken. Because scripture defines Adam as the first man. Evolution places the first man long before this period in history. Please understand, I believe that you love our Lord, and I am not like others, going to question your salvation. I just question the accuracy of evolution.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Its clear you have no interest in learning what evolution actually says and doesn't. That's fine, but you will continuously falsely judge TEs because of it.

2. Adam could very well have been a product of evolution as God's influenced designed. Did that ever occur to you? That keeps both a "special Creation" view while preserving the fact of evolution. Then again, you'd need to know what evolution actual is to understand how...

3. How can you question the "accuracy" of something that you don't even understand?

 

[ethos]

1. Its clear you have no interest in learning what evolution actually says and doesn't. That's fine, but you will continuously falsely judge TEs because of it.

2. Adam could very well have been a product of evolution as God's influenced designed. Did that ever occur to you? That keeps both a "special Creation" view while preserving the fact of evolution. Then again, you'd need to know what evolution actual is to understand how...

3. How can you question the "accuracy" of something that you don't even understand?

And it is also clear that you have no interest in what scripture says about Adam. I prefer to believe what the bible says about our history, and what it says about our future. I can see right now that there is not going to be a civil exchange between you and I, it is really sad because we believers should be trying to meet on some common ground. And by the way, you have no reason to question what I know about evolution, I know enough to be satisfied that it doesn't agree with scripture, therefore I will have to pass on it.

 

[PaladinValer]

And it is also clear that you have no interest in what scripture says about Adam.

Not the point. The point is that you are basing your understanding of evolution on the false assumption that, if evolution is true, then a literal Adam is impossible. That is false.

I prefer to believe what the bible says about our history, and what it says about our future.

Go ahead, but it would be respectful of you to actually learn and understand what the other side believes and why they believe it instead of basing your such understanding on preconceptions that are simply not true.

I can see right now that there is not going to be a civil exchange between you and I, it is really sad because we believers should be trying to meet on some common ground. And by the way, you have no reason to question what I know about evolution, I know enough to be satisfied that it doesn't agree with scripture, therefore I will have to pass on it.

That's your choice if you don't wish to learn. I do know what YECs think and why they do. Most YECs however don't with TEs, which is rather unfortunate. Unfortunate not because of a "right or wrong" attitude, but because they will constantly miss what TEs are trying to say.

 

[ethos]

Not the point. The point is that you are basing your understanding of evolution on the false assumption that, if evolution is true, then a literal Adam is impossible. That is false.



Go ahead, but it would be respectful of you to actually learn and understand what the other side believes and why they believe it instead of basing your such understanding on preconceptions that are simply not true.



That's your choice if you don't wish to learn. I do know what YECs think and why they do. Most YECs however don't with TEs, which is rather unfortunate. Unfortunate not because of a "right or wrong" attitude, but because they will constantly miss what TEs are trying to say.

My faith begins in Gensis and is finished with the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus Christ. I will choose to love you PaladinValer even though we disagree. I will ask you to forgive me if I have offended you with my comments. I cannot however pretend that I agree with evolution when I find it in opposition to what scripture says. I understand that you have recounciled your position with evolution and scripture, and you have that right. I however cannot.

 

[PaladinValer]

Then tell us why you cannot and then, if we see a mistake in your idea of what evolution is and isn't and tell you what evolution actually says?

 

[ethos]

Then tell us why you cannot and then, if we see a mistake in your idea of what evolution is and isn't and tell you what evolution actually says?

I believe my earlier post described why I see the conflict between evolution and what I believe scripture says. Please understand, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't see how evolution can reconcile with Adam being the first man. And I believe that scripture points out the lineage and time line between Adam and Christ as an important factor in the redemption of man. I frankly don't see how this can be reconciled with evolution.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is because of that earlier post that I asked that. Because what you state in there has nothing to do with what evolution actually states.