Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Vicomte13]

Also, evolution is not a 'law', it's a process that just happens.

It's a process that happens because of the laws of physics and chemistry and entropy. Thus would say the natural philosophy.

The theist would say "Nu'uhn" to that.

I say: "Who wants some pie? I like pie!"

 

[Vicomte13]

What evidence makes this a matter of theology?

In general, the subject matter.

For me, well, I don't worry about it. The evidence I have for God is that I've spoken to him directly, been taken places, seen things, and had three major miracles occur on or about my person, so the answer I know is that God IS.

And it makes the whole question sort of moot.

I understand the passion of both sides, and I think they're sincere. The problem with facts that you can't demonstrate is that you know them, but there's no way to make others know them. I used to try, coming at this issue from a third angle.
But it's fatiguing so I quit doing it.

I do understand your viewpoint, and the theist believers as well. The only way nonbelievers can believe is if God talks to them directly. And human beings passionately advocating for God is nothing at all like God talking - it is far more grating and infuriating, really.

Come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have even come onto this thread! So I'll bow out. Have a good evening. Be well.

Ahead Warp 3.

 

[Vicomte13]

That is also called "reality".

Actually, no it isn't. You have a tone of utter certitude about things you do not know. And I am certain your wrong from direct evidence...which unfortunately is not of a nature that I can show you. But I can, nevertheless, assert with certitude that yes, God does exist.

So, you can construct a reality without God in it, but I know that's false. The truth of reality is that there is a God very much in it, but he's a God that you can't find with instruments, and who hasn't shown himself to you, yet.

When he does, the imperious arrogance of the tone you have taken towards people who have told you the truth will fill you with shame.

So, if you are wise, you will simply accept that what you believe about the naturalistic world is based on the limits of what you have seen and learned, and it makes sense to you. But you will cut out the arrogant ridicule, because some people alive have, in fact, talked to God and been strange places and encountered miracles, and these things are so.

You don't have to believe them, but you don't realize just how wrong your certitude is...which is excusable...and how arrogant it is given that it is so very ignorant...which is less excusable.

But look at that - I said I was going to go get pie, and here I am posting ANOTHER post on this thread.

No need to rage in response - I won't ever see it.

Someday you will realize your error, because you'll have the data you are lacking. And on that day you will wince at the way you spoke to people before. So you should stop doing that part of it, because it's the part that's the most wrong in all of it.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, I don't think there is a purpose, there is no indication for one, and that's awesome! We don't need a higher purpose, I can give all the meaning I want to my life on this amazing planet as it is, just a rock somewhere in a purposeless universe.



No, this is a common misunderstanding. It is non random, because favorable mutations have an advantage over the rest. Therefore, the fact that they get eaten less than others, is a non-random process. The mutation is random, but the whole process is non-random because of this.

Yet you just demonstrated purpose of being above.

 

[redleghunter]

The geologic evidence demonstrates that Earth is 4.55 billion years old. That has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Whether the universe had an origin or is eternal, the Earth is still 4.55 billion years old. The two things are completely independent.



Yes, you take it to a conclusion that isn't supported by any evidence.



Stories written by men in books are not evidence.

I agree the age of the earth has little bearing on origins. What matters is causation.

I understand you dismiss the words of YHWH. That is why you are an atheist. I will not stop the presses.

The words of God were confirmed by Christ Jesus.

You dismiss this too. I understand. So as we discussed many times before you dismiss all of ancient history holding to your hermeneutic. No historical figure can stand your criteria. You must then live in a world where you only trust what you can subjectively see, hear, touch and taste.

What the other ancients did not leave were a church. Christianity has followers of Christ from the 1st century to present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, no it isn't. You have a tone of utter certitude about things you do not know. And I am certain your wrong from direct evidence...which unfortunately is not of a nature that I can show you. But I can, nevertheless, assert with certitude that yes, God does exist.

And your assertion that a god exists is of no value at all.

So, you can construct a reality without God in it, but I know that's false. The truth of reality is that there is a God very much in it, but he's a God that you can't find with instruments, and who hasn't shown himself to you, yet.

And probably not to you either.

When he does, the imperious arrogance of the tone you have taken towards people who have told you the truth will fill you with shame.

Now you are just being silly. How would you react if a Hindu gave you the same spiel that you just aimed at me? You would probably laugh at him. I have never claimed there is no god, I have merely pointed out that there is no valid reason to believe in any of them.

So, if you are wise, you will simply accept that what you believe about the naturalistic world is based on the limits of what you have seen and learned, and it makes sense to you. But you will cut out the arrogant ridicule, because some people alive have, in fact, talked to God and been strange places and encountered miracles, and these things are so.

No, they haven't. That can actually be shown to be a fact. Many people claim to have talked to God, but God's personality is always that of the claimant. There is no unchanging core to these gods except for the fact that he is different for everyone. And any supposed ridicule that you see is probably well deserved in your case.

You don't have to believe them, but you don't realize just how wrong your certitude is...which is excusable...and how arrogant it is given that it is so very ignorant...which is less excusable.

And yet you cannot see that you are many times worse than I am.

But look at that - I said I was going to go get pie, and here I am posting ANOTHER post on this thread.

No need to rage in response - I won't ever see it.

No rage here, but you just admitted that you are wrong by running away.

Someday you will realize your error, because you'll have the data you are lacking. And on that day you will wince at the way you spoke to people before. So you should stop doing that part of it, because it's the part that's the most wrong in all of it.

And the silly veiled threat at the end of the post. Very mature.[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thr real answer? None. A random blind process can't increase the information to the point a new trait can be coded for.

Can't happen.

Well, actually, we have a great theory that explains how that can happen.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Once again...is there information in the code that runs your computer?

Of course there is, now tell us how you would know if there was more information in your computer, and if that same definition of new information applies to DNA.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Natural selection is debatable....considering the changing circumstances that would allow for something to be selected.

Do you think that a cell with a mutation that keeps it from dividing will manage to pass that mutation along to its descendants?

If you agree it will not, you accept natural selection.

If you think it will, you need to explain how it can possibly even have descendants.

 

[The Barbarian]

Eolutionism contradicts the bible in many ways.
For example how did sin and death enter into the world? Paul says through one man Adam.

After all, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats. And he dies. But not physically; he lives on for many years thereafter. The death God was speaking of, is not a physical one, but a spiritual one. Hence, no contradiction between God's word and the fact that physical death was always part of nature. Indeed, God acknowledges Adam's own mortality when He expresses concern that Adam, if allowed to eat from the tree of life, might live forever.

If evolutionism is true that means there was no Garden of Eden.

There is no conflict between evolution and scripture, as most Christians admit.

Secondly, you speak of personal experiencial evidence. How does your personal experiencial evidence explain how dinosaur tissue can survive for more than 65+ MY's?

So far, no one has been able to show that. No tissues, not even intact cells. Various organic substances, but that was known a long time ago. Hint: look up "tissue" in a book of anatomy.

How does your personal experiencial evidence explain why coal still has C14 remaining in it when it should have decayed long, long ago?

Water penetrates coal seams, and so brings down dissolved atmopheric CO2. And, of course, coal seams often have radioactive elements, so nitrogen (always present in coal) could be transmuted to C-14 in situ, the same way it's transmuted in the atmosphere.

I trust the bible.

So do we. We also accept it the way God meant it.

I trust the geological column and the fossils that are contained in them. The bible tells us how they got there. The world wide flood of Noah's time deposited them.

"World wide" is an addition to His word. It's not in the flood story.

 

[-57]

After all, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats. And he dies. But not physically; he lives on for many years thereafter. The death God was speaking of, is not a physical one, but a spiritual one. Hence, no contradiction between God's word and the fact that physical death was always part of nature. Indeed, God acknowledges Adam's own mortality when He expresses concern that Adam, if allowed to eat from the tree of life, might live forever.

Adam received mercy that day. Gen 3:21 tells of God slaying an innocent animal and then using the skin for garments....as a covering. The animal died in Adams place.

Keep in mind Adam began to physically die that day.

Lets not forget this verse...1 Cor 15:20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive..

The verse is not talking about spiritual death. It is talking about physical death.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adam received mercy that day. Gen 3:21 tells of God slaying an innocent animal and then using the skin for garments....as a covering. The animal died in Adams place.

That is a revision of scripture. The Bible says no such thing.

Keep in mind Adam began to physically die that day.

Another revison. If you have to rewrite scripture to fit your belief, isn't that an important clue?

Lets not forget this verse...1 Cor 15:20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive..

If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all physically die someday. This reinforces what God said in Genesis; it is a spiritual death. Indeed, God clearly says that it isn't physical, because after Adam eats from the tree, and dies, God says:

Gen. 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

If the curse was a physical death, this would not matter at all. God said Adam would die when he ate from the tree.

The verse is not talking about spiritual death. It is talking about physical death.

See above. Your view is a modern revision of scripture.

 

[-57]

That is a revision of scripture. The Bible says no such thing.



Another revison. If you have to rewrite scripture to fit your belief, isn't that an important clue?



If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all physically die someday. This reinforces what God said in Genesis; it is a spiritual death. Indeed, God clearly says that it isn't physical, because after Adam eats from the tree, and dies, God says:

Gen. 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

If the curse was a physical death, this would not matter at all. God said Adam would die when he ate from the tree.



See above. Your view is a modern revision of scripture.

Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism. So, it appears to me it is your camp that is rewriting scripture.

Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again
1 Cor 15:20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive..

The resurrection of the dead is being raised from physical death....just as Jesus was raised from physical dead.

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

 

[TLK Valentine]

Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism.

Old and wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism. So, it appears to me it is your camp that is rewriting scripture.

Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again
1 Cor 15:20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive..

The resurrection of the dead is being raised from physical death....just as Jesus was raised from physical dead.

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The age of the theory of evolution has no bearing on the matter. By your "logic" it seems that you almost think that gravity did not exist before Newton.

 

[The Barbarian]

Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism.

No, doesn't seem so. St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, pointed out that Genesis was not a literal history. And when he published, his work was spread thoughout Christendom and no one thought to argue with him.

Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

God says that it will happen in the day Adam eats from that tree. But Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years. So, if God can be trusted to tell the truth, then it's not a physial death. Here's another reason:

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

If you sin, you don't die physically. Sinners generally live lives like anyone else. So we know that death isn't what God was speaking of. Remember, if Christ came to keep us from dying physically, He failed. But if He came to save us from a spiritual death, He is victorious.

 

[-57]

No, doesn't seem so. St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, pointed out that Genesis was not a literal history. And when he published, his work was spread thoughout Christendom and no one thought to argue with him.

Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

God says that it will happen in the day Adam eats from that tree. But Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years. So, if God can be trusted to tell the truth, then it's not a physial death. Here's another reason:

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

If you sin, you don't die physically. Sinners generally live lives like anyone else. So we know that death isn't what God was speaking of. Remember, if Christ came to keep us from dying physically, He failed. But if He came to save us from a spiritual death, He is victorious.

If what you said was right....resurrection ...would not have been used in the verse.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If what you said was right....resurrection ...would not have been used in the verse.

Can resurrection only apply to physical death?

 

[The Barbarian]

Can resurrection only apply to physical death?

No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.

 

[redleghunter]

No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.

Please explain. Everyone but a few select physically die in the Bible.