E
Everloving
Guest
Turquoise said:
Okay, first of all, God made the Earth in 6 days. Could have taken a matter of seconds, but instead, He took 6 days to give us a model to follow.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Turquoise said:God is in control of evolution, if God wasn't we would still be in the pond.
Science can only answer the "how" questions not the "why" questions.
Mallon said:If you only wanted to hear answers that would agree with you, heatherwayno, then perhaps you should have posted in the creationists only forum.
That said...
I always liked looking at it the other way, as quoted from Ken Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God:
"If you deny evolution, then the sort of God you have in mind is a bit like a pool player who can sink fifteen balls in a row, but only by taking fifteen separate shots. My God plays the game a little differently. He walks up to the table, takes just one shot, and sinks all the balls. I ask you which pool player, which God, is more worthy or praise and worship?"
heatherwayno said:I was thinking today about different races of people. I don't know why but I just started wondering if there was a biblical explaination as to why different races have different characteristics and why there are so many races to begin with. I am glad there is diversity in the world but was just wondering if the bible mentions anything about it and could it have anything to do with the tower of babel??
Everloving said:Very scientific. The God I worship and give MY praise to could have just commanded the balls to go in without taking a single shot, and they would all go in.
He controlled everyrhing. Still does. So why use evolution when ou can command things into existence.
What's more powerful. Watching a plant grow into a person, or taking the dust of the earth and forming it into a human being. That's the God I worship.
You believe God created the earth with craters on its surface and mountains in place, and stars millions of light years away -- that is to say, a false record of history. You might ask yourself the very same thing!heatherwayno said:However- why should we trust God if he is trying to deceive us into thinking he created the earth in 6 days? Doesn't make sense.
They also occasionally come out with support FOR the Bible (e.g., watch The Naked Archaeologist). Science is neutral on the issue of our faith.However- watch discovery or the history channel. THEY ARE ALWAYS COMING OUT WITH NEW INFORMATION THAT "DISPROVES THE BIBLE!" So science is often used to try and disporve the bible- your quote saying otherwise is unfounded.
For what it's worth, there weren't humans around 4.5 billion years ago, so God would not have promised stromatolites a saviour.I am not trying to jusdge God- but would it make more sense for him to wait 4.5 billion years or only 4000 to send a saviour? BC the people were to look towards the cross in anticipation of a saviour coming. After 4.5 billion years and no saviour- I think most everyone would loose faith in the anticipation of one ever coming. 4000 years is a little more reasonable than 4.5 billion years.
I had to chuckle when I read this. I love your spunk, we could use you around here.heatherwayno said:No- I am not anti-science. But- if it contradicts what the bible says- then I don't care how many "brilliant scientists" have say that something is a fact. If it contradicts the bible- it is hogwash.
It doesn't contradict the Bible, it contradicts your interpretation of the bible. Considering there are thousands of interpretations, why is yours the only correct one? The Bible wasn't written in English, so the moment you read your KJV, or NIV, or whatever, you are putting an interpretation on the Bible that was not there in the original. Genesis in Hebrew reads much different than in English.heatherwayno said:No- I am not anti-science. But- if it contradicts what the bible says- then I don't care how many "brilliant scientists" have say that something is a fact. If it contradicts the bible- it is hogwash.
They didn't lead to the wrong answer, they led to the right one. Science only gets better. A 6,000 year old Earth and global flood were disproven by creationists hundreds of years ago. Science has only gotten more accurate since then.Not sure where scientists have went wrong in their calculations of the age of the earth. Why did so many lines of study lead to the same wrong answer?
And yet, many scientists are Christians. Scientists have no hidden evil agenda to disprove the Bible. Science is the study of the natural universe - not an ancient text and theology.Maybe the error that scientists make is that they are trying to disporve the bible- contradict the word of God.
And you are sending the message to believers that Christianity is full of ignorant people who hold to ancient ideas that have since been disproven. Augustine pointed out that if Christians are going to claim such ridiculous things like a literal 6,000 Earth or global flood in the face of unbelievers who are very knowledgable in those fields, it makes the important things like the ressurection just as silly looking (my paraphrase). Holding to a literal Genesis only damages Christianity. It doesn't help it.Believe what you will about a literal 6 day creation and evolution. However- the message that you are sending to non-believers is that the bible is not based upon facts.
Considering there are 35,000 sects of Christianity who disagree on some aspect of Christian doctrine or the Bible, it's pretty obvious that the Bible is often times ambiguous anyway.It's contents are ambiguous- they do not stand the test of time.
And the message you are sending is that Christianity is full of ignorant people and none of it is worth the time of day. What unbeliever wants to associate with a religion where its members are still claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth is only 6,000 years old?Whatever scientific principle that seems to be popular at any given time can disprove God's word. You really should be ashamed. What you are doing- by placing your faith in science rather that the bible is sending non-beleivers a very tragic message.
There is a difference between being capable of creating the Earth in 6 days, and actually doing it in 6 days. Theistic evolutionists agree with the former, but reject the latter.It is one that says- "don't trust the bible. Science has time and time again disproven it. God was not all powerful- he did not create the Earth in 6 days.
The Bible never says God got it perfect the first time. It only says it was good. Which merely means it fit God's purpose. And considering according to you, God exterminated the entire planet except 8 people, and then felt bad for doing it, the Bible shows God didn't get it right the first time.He didn't get his creation right the first time- it took him billions of years of evoluionary attempts to create the eart and species that we have today.
Perhaps you should define what it means to "get it right", since by the literalist approach, the entire world is condemned by sin because one man ate a piece of fruit, and 90% of all humanity that ever lived or will lived will suffer eternally in Hell. That's "getting it right"?With all the genetic mutations and disorders that the populations has today- he STILL has not gotten it right".
And you think people are going to instead become Christian when you tell them the Earth is only 6,000 years old and a global flood with zero evidence destroyed the entire Earth 4300 years ago?If that is the message that I heard- and I was not a Christian- I certainly wouldn't become one.
God never said the universe was perfect.Why put your faith in a God who decieves people by his words in the bible and who has had several failed attempts at creating a perfect universe.
It is a fact that things adapt. Even most creationists accept this. It is rather telling if you don't. Where do you think antibiotics or different strains of viruses come from?By failed attempts- I mean- according to evolution- conditions kept changing causing the need for species to evolve and adapt.
In Hebrew, Adam isn't a name. Adam is the hebrew word for man or mankind.This doesn't coincide with the bible. God created Adam and Eve- they were created in God's image- we are all descendants of them.
Why not? Maybe God thought it would be more impressive to put lots of time and care into the formation of the Earth instead of whipping it together in an instant. The Universe and Earth are far more impressive when they are ancient.If Jesus came to the Earth approximatley 2000 years ago- why would God wait billions of years to send him?
Why are there no Biblical accounts of nuclear fusion or gravity? The Bible doesn't mention everything.Why is there no biblical accounts of people living billions of years ago?
Why would they be mentioned? The Bible serves a very specific purpose. It is not a scientific recount of the entire history of life on Earth.It accounts for intelligent- modern day people. NOT PRIMITIVE APE-LIKE CREATURES. Surely if they were the former human race- they would be mentioned in the bible.
No, but they are still hominids, and ancestors of modern day humans.Yes- I know that there is evidence and fossils of Lucy, homo-erectus ect. But these fossils are not of the homo-sapien species. They are a species that have become exctinct.
Despite there being millions upon millions of species of animals, fish, insects, etc., why doesn't the Bible mention Adam naming any of them?Humans are still here- God created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The bible says that they were intellegent- that Adam named every animal on Earth.
How do you know what Adam spoke? The author of Genesis wasn't born when Adam existed. Your entire theory is based on the assumption that the author was stating word for word everything Adam said.Notice that he was fluent in his speaking- he did not grunt- he gave them names.
This is true. Read up on linguistics. Our modern languages are evolved from the IndoEuropean languages. Why do you think so many romance languages are similar? Why do you think English borrowed tons of words from French, Spanish, Italian, German etc.? They evolved and developed from each other.Evolutionist that I have talked to disagree with the Tower of Bable- saying that languages have evolved slowly over a long period of time starting out with grunts.
You are treading on thin ground by claiming it isn't possible for God to have done it any other way.Not possible- Adam named the animals and he was the first man created. So he could not have been some primitive creature- but a modern day human created in the likeness of God. Think about the message you are sending to others- when you promote this heresy as fact.
Ah, the old Hell threat. So much for God "getting it right" huh? I'm convinced Hell is a catholic invention. God is loving and good, not evil and vindictive.People are in hell because of placing their faith in science rather than God. Think about it.
This raises an important question -- have you ever seen two olive-skinned people give birth to a caucasian or black child? What do you think is the mechanism behind change in skin colour if not microevolution?Everloving said:Color is a gene, just like anything else. The allels (sp) within the genes deside [sic] color. Many creationist [sic] I have learned from believe that Adam and Eve were darker skinned. Somewhere between black and white. The mixing of these allels [sic] mixed with the spreading of people after the Tower of Babel caused the differences in skin.
Strawman. What you are describing is Lammarckian evolution, which was put to rest last millenium. Please get with the times!If I get a really bad sunburn or get really tan, as does my husband, will my children be sunburned or tan?? NO!!!! They will be what our genes, passed onto them, tell them to be.
Ah. So you feel that white people, black people, and anyone not of God's original created race is a "degenerate". Gotcha! Now where have I heard such statements before???Sure, interfamily marraige has caused some mutation in genes, but there is no good mutation I've ever heard of. Only degenerating mutation.
You really need to learn about evolution. Seeing that you're only 15, I can understand where your lack of understanding comes from, but at least learn about what you're arguing. Skin color is due to adaptive evolution due to the difference in the UV rays in certain parts of the world. That would be why Africans are predominately dark skinned. High degree of UV sunlight there. And no you getting a tan would not make your kids tan since evolution occurs in populations, not in individuals.Everloving said:Color is a gene, just like anything else. The allels (sp) within the genes deside color. Many creationist I have learned from believe that Adam and Eve were darker skinned. Somewhere between black and white. The mixing of these allels mixed with the spreading of people after the Tower of Babel caused the differences in skin. They also determine many characteristic. Evolution in skincolor or anything else is bull. If I get a really bad sunburn or get really tan, as does my husband, will my children be sunburned or tan?? NO!!!! They will be what our genes, passed onto them, tell them to be. Sure, interfamily marraige has caused some mutation in genes, but there is no good mutation I've ever heard of. Only degenerating mutation. So, using this as proof of evolution means that we are degenerating forms a frogs and other such creatures.
Everloving said:God created not only the Earth during creation, but also Heaven. Did angles evolve too?? Or do they break the rules of your evolution. Or is that yet another missing link in the half done puzzle of evolutioen.
No response given was contrary to the Bible, and therefore was not anti-biblical.53Isaiah said:Actually she asked for a Biblical response, to wit you did not respond within the scope of the question.
What's more powerful: watching an embryo growing into a person over 30 years, or taking the dust of the earth and forming it into a human being. How were you formed?Everloving said:What's more powerful. Watching a plant grow into a person, or taking the dust of the earth and forming it into a human being. That's the God I worship.
Can you give science a physical angel to study?Everloving said:Anybody wanna answer this??? Let's hear evolutions side of the creation of Heaven.
No, nor did I need to know whether or not Adam had a belly button to believe the gospel of Christ...You think people are going to instead become Christian when you tell them the Earth is only 6,000 years old and a global flood with zero evidence destroyed the entire Earth 4300 years ago?
Evolution occurs in biological organisms, Angels are not biological organisms. It's helpful to have a clue what you're talking about before shooting your mouth off.Anybody wanna answer this??? Let's hear evolutions side of the creation of Heaven.
Ah. So you feel that white people, black people, and anyone not of God's original created race is a "degenerate". Gotcha! Now where have I heard such statements before???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?