"In His Name, the Gentiles will trust" - what will "Evolutionist Gentiles" trust in Him?

[The Barbarian]

You'll need to explain what is meant by ...came from the earth.

The problem for you, is God didn't think anyone had to explain it to you. He just told you that the earth brought forth living things. He doesn't seem to think the details were important to the message He's giving you.

The problem is you present Adam and Eve as having ancestors.

That's not a problem. It's just accepting God's creation as it is. Fortunately for you, He doesn't care if you like it or even believe it. That's not how your salvation will be determined.

 

[JackRT]

What biblical evidence do you have that says he was married?
Song of the suffering servant says he had no children. When his family thought he was mad, it was his mother and brothers, not his wife who came.
The evidence implies very strongly that he was not married.

If you have evidence to the contrary post it.

It is an old sermon of mine and lengthy. It would derail this thread. Do you wish a PM?

 

[-57]

The problem for you, is God didn't think anyone had to explain it to you. He just told you that the earth brought forth living things. He doesn't seem to think the details were important to the message He's giving you.

God provided some of the details....Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from Adams rib....That's what my bible says...I would imagine you magic markered it out of your bible.

That's not a problem. It's just accepting God's creation as it is. Fortunately for you, He doesn't care if you like it or even believe it. That's not how your salvation will be determined.

I've acepted Gods creation as it is....six days than a day of rest. It provides the reason as to why we need salvation...something your theo-evo bible doesn't explain.

 

[Tolworth John]

It is an old sermon of mine and lengthy. It would derail this thread. Do you wish a PM?

No, the biblical evidence, chapter and verses are all I need.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've acepted Gods creation as it is....six days than a day of rest.

As you learned, the text itself says that the "yom" are not literal days. So that's not a workable revision for you.

Instead, you might accept that the story is figurative, about the way the first two humans disobeyed God and lost their innocence and fellowship with Him. It provides the reason as to why we need salvation...something your creationist revisions to the Bible do not explain.

 

[-57]

As you learned, the text itself says that the "yom" are not literal days. So that's not a workable revision for you.

Instead, you might accept that the story is figurative, about the way the first two humans disobeyed God and lost their innocence and fellowship with Him. It provides the reason as to why we need salvation...something your creationist revisions to the Bible do not explain.

Your choice of definition of yom is incorrect....read what else the Bible has to say...go on, read it.

Exo 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Your heretical evolutionism has major flaws...want to see yet another????

If Adam fell....what of the rest of the population of people that didn't? Some of them would be with us today in an unfallen state. But that contradicts the Bible...All have sinned and fallen short. Your heretical theory has no path to that.

 

[lifepsyop]

As you learned, the text itself says that the "yom" are not literal days. So that's not a workable revision for you.

Instead, you might accept that the story is figurative, about the way the first two humans disobeyed God and lost their innocence and fellowship with Him. It provides the reason as to why we need salvation...something your creationist revisions to the Bible do not explain.

Oh good, you seem to be very concerned about what the Bible says... Now do the Genesis Flood, and the Exodus, how about the book of Joshua?... how about any of the major supernatural claims in the Bible? Should the OP believe any of them or are they all "figurative" because SCIENCE (TM) ?

 

[-57]

Oh good, you seem to be very concerned about what the Bible says... Now do the Genesis Flood, and the Exodus, how about the book of Joshua?... how about any of the major supernatural claims in the Bible? Should the OP believe any of them or are they all "figurative" because SCIENCE (TM) ?

I think we'll find everything is figurative except the resurrection....despite science saying that can't happen either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh good, you seem to be very concerned about what the Bible says... Now do the Genesis Flood, and the Exodus, how about the book of Joshua?... how about any of the major supernatural claims in the Bible?

What makes you think miracles are impossible? 57 thinks science rules out miracles, but as you've seen, he doesn't really know anything about science. Tell us how you think science rules out miracles.

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner here. Let's see how you get yourself out.

 

[The Barbarian]

If Adam fell....what of the rest of the population of people that didn't? Some of them would be with us today in an unfallen state.

Statistically, that's very, very unlikely. But let's see your math.

 

[JackRT]

What makes you think miracles are impossible? 57 thinks science rules out miracles, but as you've seen, he doesn't really know anything about science. Tell us how you think science rules out miracles.

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner here. Let's see how you get yourself out.

There are things that science is not able to explain --- yet.

The list of these things grows increasingly smaller as science advances.

 

[Gottservant]

How do you create an "Evolutionism", that's where I get stuck?

But let me put it another way: the tree with twelve fruits (mentioned in Revelation), is it twelve times "evolved",, or just one? How do you put "Evolution", when there are multiple ways to survive? (EDIT: more than one way to survive, is more evolved, am I right? it is more than "one way" evolved? even more, by self-evolving?)

The point is, the fruit of Evolution is gradient, how you assess it affects your survival,, how you determine its return affects your herd immunity?

Is there a return after Evolution dies: there is a return after Jesus, dies!

 

[Gottservant]

Interestingly, it seems that Evolutionists (I assume people who are bagging God, are Evolutionists) are quite comfortable that they can bag God - while on the other hand, even though they create countless images bagging God, they are largely oblivious to images of Jesus rescuing people.

It is a blind spot, that Evolution is for one instance of belief, but not believing.

I think if Evolutionists really looked at Jesus rescuing people, they would realize how sad they are, don't you? Why - because you can't laugh at something you yourself need??

 

[JackRT]

Interestingly, it seems that Evolutionists (I assume people who are bagging God, are Evolutionists) are quite comfortable that they can bag God - while on the other hand, even though they create countless images bagging God, they are largely oblivious to images of Jesus rescuing people.

It is a blind spot, that Evolution is for one instance of belief, but not believing.

I think if Evolutionists really looked at Jesus rescuing people, they would realize how sad they are, don't you? Why - because you can't laugh at something you yourself need??

What a confused and utterly incorrect characterization of those of us who accept the Theory of Evolution as a powerful scientific model.

 

[Gottservant]

It's really dissatisfying that we can't just sort of "work out", what it is that Evolutionists 'want'?

Like you have a friend that comes over to your house, and every time he comes over, he wants to see a different part of your house - but you never learn "he likes the rumpus room" or "he likes big open spaces": how frustrating is that?

If someone won't tell you what they want, it's not unforgiveable to treat them as heathen?

 

[JackRT]

It's really dissatisfying that we can't just sort of "work out", what it is that Evolutionists 'want'?

An "evolutionist" wants to know why and how life acts the way it does. But on a human level an evolutionist will sometimes get very frustrated when he or she is vilified or condemned.

 

[The Barbarian]

The evolutionist also have evidence that when you die...on day 3 you don't resurrect.

You don't. But Christian evolutionists know that with God all things are possible. So it worked fine for Jesus. You do believe He's God, don't you?

 

[Gottservant]

I think part of this, is realising that God is bringing Humanity (even "Evolved" Humanity) around to a point, that He is already familiar with - that is, that God has Evolutionary experience, even that is able to agree with Creation, as it specifically has been "designed".

Whether He creates or destroys, at that point is up to Him - the point being that God will bring Glory to His Son, by the contrast (between Creation and Evolution); He will not destroy one in favour with the other, though He will set them on His right and on His left.

The strength of this, in terms of Evolution is that He is able to continually bring Humanity around, to that meeting point - the Grace of God, receiving the greater Glory, as more comes of that contrast.

We do not need to earn Evolution, even Evolution that is more advanced than other contemporary attempts at Evolution, it is a free gift of "Grace", that God extends through Evolution, to the world.

The more repentant we are, the more likely we will be able to survive!

 

[Gottservant]

I have hit upon a concept that is quite the extension of the theory of Evolution, which mirrors the Monty Hall problem in its efficacy.

The idea is that you evolve in a niche, and upon exiting that niche you have a choice: "will I stay where I can further evolve? Will I attempt to evolve again now? Or will I attempt to evolve again when I encounter a later opportunity?"

As with the Monty Hall problem, it is revealed that there is no further adaptation that can be had in the niche in which you evolved, do you want to switch from evolving now to later or later to now? The Monty Hall problem would suggest that it is more probable that you will have a better outcome: if you switch. That's just how the odds work out.

This (betting) is compounding Evolution. It is taking an adaptation, and giving it purpose. The result is a number of adaptations, around a familiar niche: not just one. By the numbers then, this is more likely to survive. Now, its not all roses, you can trivialize to the point that you are overwhelmed with adaptations that only have one very narrow application, but a bell curve of possibilities, will most definitely help you reach your peak - if only for that niche and what is close to it.

The point is, that the myth of mutation being the only driving force to change, is just that: a myth - cognisant of the difference a niche makes, is able to create a far more adaptable species, than one that takes niches for granted: as a rule. It's not wrong to contrast mutation with persistence, if you don't reroute other's perfectibility - but there you go: you can at least compound adaptability regardless for the most part of how much mutation might be distracting you.

As long as you don't short-change yourself, by refusing to explore the context around your niche, you will always survive more (probabilistically).

 

[The Barbarian]

I have hit upon a concept that is quite the extension of the theory of Evolution, which mirrors the Monty Hall problem in its efficacy.

The idea is that you evolve in a niche, and upon exiting that niche you have a choice: "will I stay where I can further evolve? Will I attempt to evolve again now? Or will I attempt to evolve again when I encounter a later opportunity?"

Organisms tend to stay where they are adapted. But that means they don't evolve much. A well-fitted population, in a relatively constant environment will be prevented from evolving much, by natural selection. It's why most of the time, we see stasis in populations, and a lot of evolution, only if something major changes.

Bad assumption, incorrect conclusion.