Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Astrid]

If you mean Jesus is the door (metaphor) to our salvation, yes, I believe it. I know what Pi is, but I'm not familiar with it in this context.

Of course it is a metaphor. It takes a little, not much, but
some thought, to see that.
Other parts of the bible require a lot of thought.

See I respect the bible far more than dare I say,
most Christians. Thing is, I've actually read it. I dont just
snooze in the pews. I've tead it, and, I've an analytical bent.

So i notice things. Like glorious poetry, deep folk wisdom,
uplifting words to live by.

I also can see where Paul's snake story is bogus, and the inaccuracy
in the " molten sea " in Kings, a bronze vessel 30 cubits, they say,
around, 10 across.
Ah, Pi=3. Says so.
IF YOU DONT BOTHER TO THINK.

It is hugely arrogant to believe, without
knowing the bibleat least better than I, and
thinking deeper, AND knowing
science (Physics, chemistry, geology, biology for a stsrt)
better than any researcher on earth ( you dont ) to think that
you know things that you absolutely do not know.
Such as thinking you know " macroevolution"
is impossible!

You didn't even understand that I, we, are doing the opposite of
trying to dismiss the bible. You managed to get it exactly
backwards!

You are assuming way to much, overestimating
what you can do.

Its vanity my friend. Satan's favorite sin, they say.

 

[coffee4u]

And I don't understand why. Accepting that Genesis is metaphorical doesn't lessen the bible.

But it actually does. It isn't just about Genesis and how it appears. I think it can stand on its own just fine, but its more about the verses that point back to it, than to Genesis itself. Genesis isn't some odd island divorced from the rest of scripture, it is all connected together.

And what is most important about Genesis isn't creation, it's the origin of sin and death. I have said this before, it is isn't about creation its about death.

It doesn't detract from what Jesus tried to teach us. It shouldn't affect one's faith in the slightest.

People can have faith without knowing much about scripture at all. The same way many people would agree with evolution without understanding a thing about it. There are levels of understanding.

Yes it does detract from the teaching of Jesus very much so. This is why we are so outspoken about this. Just because people don't seem to see it, speaks more to the fact that people are lacking in Bible knowledge than anything else. Church sermons don't teach on this or if they do its barely touched on and not in any kind of depth. The average Christian isn't going to ever see this teaching unless they seek it out for themselves. They are happy enough with "God is creator, Jesus is savior, I won't worry about the details"
I say that as someone who thought exactly that way but I got lucky and had the opportunity given to me to learn from a very knowledgeable Bible teacher.

Jesus very much teaches on sin and death and the resurrection of the body and the end of the world including the end of death. You can't have an end to something without it also having a beginning and how and why death came about is every bit as important as how it ends.

But it does mean that you have to struggle to justify other sections of the written word that are frankly unjustifiable. Like putting homosexuals to death. Like stoning people who work on the Sabbath. Like explaining how trees can talk and a man can live inside a whale.

The rest of the Bible supports and upholds creation and how death came to be.
I don't see what else you said there is relevant to this topic.
Stoning people was how the death sentence under the law was carried out. A wide range of sinful behavior was treated that way, but this sounds more like something for another thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Jesus very much teaches on sin and death and the resurrection of the body and the end of the world including the end of death. You can't have an end to something without it also having a beginning and how and why death came about is every bit as important as how it ends.

Then you need a begining for mankind. And that's when we became God's children. When we were ensouled. Either en masse or as a couple at some point if you want an Adam and an Eve. But there is a galactic amount of evidence showing that a literal 6 day creation a few thousand years ago cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken as anything except a metaphorical story, a parable, an indication to people over two thousand years ago that there was a begining. A vast majority of people who were illiterate and had probably not seen a written word let alone be capable of understanding how we actually came to be.

You are denying almost every scientific field there is. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics...the list just goes on and on.

 

[Shemjaza]

No it is not, I already gave 3 explanations for why some might hold the view of theistic evolution and how I held it myself for about a year after becoming a Christian.

Giving 3 explanations for why some might hold the view of theistic evolution is literally three examples as to why your initial statement was false.

>>>"hypothesis of abiogenesis."
Oh please with the fancy wording as if this makes everything you say somehow more factual.
Meaning: Quote: "The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis holds that the primitive life on Earth originated from lifeless matter and it took millions of years to transpire."
Yeah, because I too can Google.

If it's a quote, what's it source? It seems confused and unclear.

I like to use clear and accurate words for things.

My phrase was actually "any particular hypothesis of abiogenesis" because there isn't a single explanation that all researchers agree on.

I assume the context of your crimped text was providing a comparison to the so called "law of biogenesis" arguing against the formation of complex modern animals from unliving matter.

It means evolution from non life to man through naturalistic means over millions of years just as I said in less flowery terms.

Except your statement in inherently misleading by linking the evidence for and mechanisms of evolution and abiogenesis. Neither is dependent on each other.

The amount I know about evolution is reflected in the amount of understanding you have about spiritual matters.

I'm happy to explain my understanding of evolution... creationists have not been so willing to do so with their declarations.

Can you explain how one particular spiritual interpretation can be distinguished from another?

Theistic Evolutionist, Old Earth Intelligent Design Proponents, Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earth believers can all be Christians with the same scripture... how do you spiritually discern between them?

 

[inquiring mind]

Of course it is a metaphor. It takes a little, not much, but
some thought, to see that.
Other parts of the bible require a lot of thought.

Only if you take sections literally. Like Genesis. In which case you are making a rod for your own back. And I don't understand why. Accepting that Genesis is metaphorical doesn't lessen the bible. It doesn't detract from what Jesus tried to teach us. It shouldn't affect one's faith in the slightest.

Saying Jesus is the door to our salvation is a metaphor, but a description of who he was and what he did is an historical account. In my opinion, Genesis is also history, which you choose not to believe. Maybe you think it's a metaphor for abiogenesis, or for God bringing it about through the macroevolution process... I think not. Science books interpret things as they are now and project backwards, speculating more the further back they go, believing things have always operated the same way. Exact processes can't be verified, so they speculate more, all the while ignoring God's word because it doesn't fit a science model. God does not have to justify His word, you either believe it or you don't. From Adam on we've repeatidly failed in that regard. I think most attempts at making the Genesis account metaphorical are to discredit God's word, and therefore Him as well (JMO). Arrogant men, who a thousand years from now will still be groping for an answer to our origin; and belittling God's word in their attempt, which no doubt will be here for those who wish to read it.

 

[Astrid]

Saying Jesus is the door to our salvation is a metaphor, but a description of who he was and what he did is an historical account. In my opinion, Genesis is also history, which you choose not to believe. Maybe you think it's a metaphor for abiogenesis, or for God bringing it about through the macroevolution process... I think not. Science books interpret things as they are now and project backwards, speculating more the further back they go, believing things have always operated the same way. Exact processes can't be verified, so they speculate more, all the while ignoring God's word because it doesn't fit a science model. God does not have to justify His word, you either believe it or you don't. From Adam on we've repeatidly failed in that regard. I think most attempts at making the Genesis account metaphorical are to discredit God's word, and therefore Him as well (JMO). Arrogant men, who a thousand years from now will still be groping for an answer to our origin; and belittling God's word in their attempt, which no doubt will be here for those who wish to read it.

I did not expect you to think about or comprehend a word I said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Law of Biogenesis cites that life did not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. That means there is no genetic information in fishes to start growing legs. It can become a different kind of fish but still a fish.

But there is plenty of fossil evidence, and evidence in current species, that shows that fins can evolve into legs... Anatomically, vertebrate fins and legs have the same internal structure. That's the way evolution usually works, by repurposing structures.

 

[Astrid]

But there is plenty of fossil evidence, and evidence in current species, that shows that fins can evolve into legs... Anatomically, vertebrate fins and legs have the same internal structure. That's the way evolution usually works, by repurposing structures.

Kind of almost like ironic that our science deniers pounce on
a " law" to prove their point.
As if.
Pasteur, "law of bio" only saythat every experiment so far
has failed to produce life.

Someone could have made a similar law about electric light bulbs

 

[Hark]

But there is plenty of fossil evidence, and evidence in current species, that shows that fins can evolve into legs... Anatomically, vertebrate fins and legs have the same internal structure. That's the way evolution usually works, by repurposing structures.

There are no evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil records. Evolutionist Gould admits this by noting the huge gap of transitional fossils in the fossil record for why he postulated punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.

Gould even stated that for that explosion in the fossil record to occur back in the Cambrian period, a global flood had to tap that capacity. Evolutionists contended that Gould never said that the global flood covered the mountains, but yet there are marine fossils found on mountaintops all over the world. The Andes Mountains has fossilized whale bones found with other fossilized marine life BURIED TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones. But as evolutionists in the news article rationalized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping marine life, they fail to explain how the fossilized land animal bones were found buried together with them. Plus they fail to explain how marine fossils are found on other mountaintops all over the world.

So when you put out the evolution theory and note Gould's observation with the findings on mountaintops, you may just see evidence of the Biblical global flood since science can never carbon date anything past human history reliably when there have been proven errant dating testing results as found within human history like a living mollusk found 2,300 years old dead.

Christians are o prove everything by the scripture with His help and so those interested in science should prove everything in science and not take any assumption or unproven hypothesis at face value. Thanks to Jesus Christ, the laws of science plainly disproves the evolution theory and therefore it is a false science, but it seems many continue to not see that hardly at all to this day.

 

[Astrid]

There are no evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil records. Evolutionist Gould admits this by noting the huge gap of transitional fossils in the fossil record for why he postulated punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.

Gould even stated that for that explosion in the fossil record to occur back in the Cambrian period, a global flood had to tap that capacity. Evolutionists contended that Gould never said that the global flood covered the mountains, but yet there are marine fossils found on mountaintops all over the world. The Andes Mountains has fossilized whale bones found with other fossilized marine life BURIED TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones. But as evolutionists in the news article rationalized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping marine life, they fail to explain how the fossilized land animal bones were found buried together with them. Plus they fail to explain how marine fossils are found on other mountaintops all over the world.

So when you put out the evolution theory and note Gould's observation with the findings on mountaintops, you may just see evidence of the Biblical global flood since science can never carbon date anything past human history reliably when there have been proven errant dating testing results as found within human history like a living mollusk found 2,300 years old dead.

Christians are o prove everything by the scripture with His help and so those interested in science should prove everything in science and not take any assumption or unproven hypothesis at face value. Thanks to Jesus Christ, the laws of science plainly disproves the evolution theory and therefore it is a false science, but it seems many continue to not see that hardly at all to this day.

What a mishmash of confusion, ignorance, and falsehoods.

 

[Hark]

What a mishmash of confusion, ignorance, and falsehoods.

Maybe some day, you will be saying that about the evolution theory, but as it is, Jesus Christ shall be appearing soon as the Bridegroom in judging His House first for why many believers in iniquity will be left behind.

So all I can ask you to do is seek Jesus Christ and His wisdom to help you see the truth in real science from that false science because like it or not, the macroevolution which is what the evolution theory is really all about, is a false science.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe some day, you will be saying that about the evolution theory, but as it is, Jesus Christ shall be appearing soon as the Bridegroom in judging His House first for why many believers in iniquity will be left behind.

So all I can ask you to do is seek Jesus Christ and His wisdom to help you see the truth in real science from that false science because like it or not, the macroevolution which is what the evolution theory is really all about, is a false science.

Im saying it today about your claims.
Its pitiful for someones religion to rely on garbage.

Educated Christians don't need it for their faith,.

 

[Hark]

Im saying it today about your claims.
Its pitiful for someones religion to rely on garbage.

Educated Christians don't need it for their faith,.

Educated Christians need His help to discern the lies, the speculations and the assumptions given in that false science to see it as the false science that it is.

And so far, you just being dismissive and hardly sharing any of your education in "science" is hardly making any point in this discussion only because you can't prove macroevolution has occurred at all.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Educated Christians need His help to discern the lies, the speculations and the assumptions given in that false science to see it as the false science that it is.

And so far, you just being dismissive and hardly sharing any of your education in "science" is hardly making any point in this discussion only because you can't prove macroevolution has occurred at all.

Mebbe you can get permission to change your name. I momentarily confused you with @HARK!

 

[Hark]

Mebbe you can get permission to change your name. I momentarily confused you with @HARK!

Yeah.. I became aware of that member after I had joined. I had no intention to copy his nickname at all, but the exclamation point after his name HARK! should help some members in see us apart.

Sorry for any confusion. I suppose if the staff wanted me to, I could come up with another nickname but I am pretty sure they are aware of me and see no need, or so I assume.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah.. I became aware of that member after I had joined. I had no intention to copy his nickname at all, but the exclamation point after his name HARK! should help some members in see us apart.

Sorry for any confusion. I suppose if the staff wanted me to, I could come up with another nickname but I am pretty sure they are aware of me and see no need, or so I assume.

No worries. I'll get used to it.

 

[Astrid]

Educated Christians need His help to discern the lies, the speculations and the assumptions given in that false science to see it as the false science that it is.

And so far, you just being dismissive and hardly sharing any of your education in "science" is hardly making any point in this discussion only because you can't prove macroevolution has occurred at all.

Go back to that thing you claim evos say about fossils in mountain rocks.
Find one example to show you didnt make it up.
Thats just one of an entire post of garbage.

 

[Shemjaza]

There are no evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil records. Evolutionist Gould admits this by noting the huge gap of transitional fossils in the fossil record for why he postulated punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution because gradual macroevolution cannot be true.

Gould even stated that for that explosion in the fossil record to occur back in the Cambrian period, a global flood had to tap that capacity. Evolutionists contended that Gould never said that the global flood covered the mountains, but yet there are marine fossils found on mountaintops all over the world. The Andes Mountains has fossilized whale bones found with other fossilized marine life BURIED TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones. But as evolutionists in the news article rationalized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea trapping marine life, they fail to explain how the fossilized land animal bones were found buried together with them. Plus they fail to explain how marine fossils are found on other mountaintops all over the world.

So when you put out the evolution theory and note Gould's observation with the findings on mountaintops, you may just see evidence of the Biblical global flood since science can never carbon date anything past human history reliably when there have been proven errant dating testing results as found within human history like a living mollusk found 2,300 years old dead.

Christians are o prove everything by the scripture with His help and so those interested in science should prove everything in science and not take any assumption or unproven hypothesis at face value. Thanks to Jesus Christ, the laws of science plainly disproves the evolution theory and therefore it is a false science, but it seems many continue to not see that hardly at all to this day.

In human evolution alone there are a number of excellent transitional fossils:

 

[Psalm 27]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

Dr Georgia Purdom teaches on genetics. She is a creationist. Here is a video link which may help.

 

[Shemjaza]

Dr Georgia Purdom teaches on genetics. She is a creationist. Here is a video link which may help.

An hour long lecture from an organisation known for dishonest publications is a bit of a time investment right now.

Does she explain the genetic remnants in reminiscent of families in modern animals?

Does she explain how animals genetically varied so quickly into modern animals after the flood?

Does she explain creationist genetic information and if it can be objectively measured?